Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]

[Michael Clark]

20mp on the 7D ii’s 6 year old sensor will perform much worse than a 17mp version of the new R5 sensor especially with a low pass or no AA filter.
The 7D ii performance in low light is pretty terrible for instance and I’m sure the R5 in crop mode would be vastly superior and I’d love to buy an R5 but it’s very expensive
If canon priced the R7 at the same or slightly less than the R6 and with similar features I’d buy it for sure.

Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?

But the age and performance of the 2014 7D Mark II is beside the point.

The existing 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is better than the 7D Mark II in similar lighting. Presumably a 32MP version of the roughly 80MP sensor expected in the predicted R5s would be even better than that.

This would be a more significant improvement over the 7D Mark II than a 17.8MP APS-C version of the FF 45MP sensor found in the R5.

Many of us who want a 7D Mark II replacement would be perfectly happy with an R7 that uses the existing 32MP sensor found in the 90D/M6 Mark II combined with the DiG!C X processing pipeline and an APS-C version of the 500,000 cycle shutter in the R5 (or even the 300,000 rated shutter of the R6) in a magnesium alloy body with weather sealing comparable to the R5.

Just for comparative purposes, the 2014 $1,799 7D Mark II had a 200,000 cycle rated shutter at the same time the 2012 $3,499 5D Mark III and the 2016 $3,499 5D Mark IV had shutter ratings of 150,000.

 

[unfocused]

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between hoping for an RF mount successor to the 7D Mark II because it seems to fit the needs of the vast majority of current 7D Mark II users (who often also use FF bodies and EF lenses) more than a potential M7 would and being hellbent that Canon must offer such a camera.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying anything in the EOS M system has to be small and saying Canon will most likely choose to keep everything in the EOS M system small.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying Canon can't offer anything larger in the EOS M system and saying that by all previous indications Canon most likely won't offer anything larger in the EOS M system.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between being disappointed if Canon does not offer some kind of 7D replacement in the RF mount and being really upset if Canon does not offer some kind of high end APS-C body in the RF mount.

In other words, there's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between what you keep arguing against and what many current 7D Mark II users are actually saying.

Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.

 

[SteveC]

I would very much like a fast wide prime such as an EF-M 16 f/1.8 and I sir, am no elitist snob. Bye the bye, do you have any Grey Poupon?

Of course not, if you were you wouldn't want it as an EF-M.

 

[Michael Clark]

Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.

Intensity? There's not a single exclamation point in the entire previous comment to which you're responding!!!!!

Intensity? There's not a single word in ALL CAPS in the previous comment.

What I see is you PROJECTING intensity into any comment with which you disagree!!!!!

 

[SteveC]

You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.

It's huge enough, and he was indeed talking about the bodies...go read what you replied to.

I reported earlier taking the body cap for my R6 and placing it on my M50 and M6-II. It's actually very close to the same as the height of the M6, and on the M50, it would only fit by impinging on the viewfinder hump. Both of those bodies would more than likely have to be bulked up at least a little bit to accommodate an RF throat.

 

[dilbert]

And what technical analysis has been done to state that EF is "to slow for modern cameras"?

The EF protocol is a synchronous single-bit bus. I think I've even seen it mentioned that it is as slow as 9600bps on some lenses. That really limits your ability to use autofocus on moving objets.

As to who did the technical analysis or what was done - Canon did it. If you read enough of the original press releases and documentation when the R series was introduced, you'll find Canon mentioning that EF is now (or was) holding Canon back in lens development.

 

[SteveC]

Remember most camera users don't use long heavy lenses. An M body with a compact lens is a great travel tool.

My most common "casual" camera is the M6-II with the Tamron 18-200 (native mount) lens, which many have had trouble with but has never given me any. It's a bit fatter than the Canon standard diameter (filter threat is 62mm) but covers a LOT of ground, use-wise. Which is why I think the utility of the series could be greatly increased if Canon would just bend a bit on that lens diameter. It's still pretty compact (by enthusiast standards, not by point and shoot standards) even with that lens on it. Not pocketable, but light. And of course nothing stops one from putting on the 22 mm pancake (which is on my M-50 right now) and stuffing it into a pocket.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not claiming that the average EF-M buyer would give a damn about an 18-200 lens, I'm talking more about people like us. IMHO it's a great walking-around setup.

 

[Antono Refa]

It's huge enough

I disagree, but to each his own.

and he was indeed talking about the bodies...go read what you replied to.

I know he was talking about bodies. He replied to a post of mine about lenses. Go ahead, read what he replied to.

 

[nchoh]

I agree, Canon made a mistake with the EOS 7D series... they never should have released it. Now the expectation from some customers is that they should be able to get high end performance from a low end price point, just because of APS-C....

Anyway, I think these 7D loving APS-C holdouts are just going to have to accept that the R6 is the camera Canon has come up with for them.

If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera. The R5 with it's animal eye focus together with the new 600mm and 800mm are amazing combination for birding. I believe that Canon knows the market and will not bother trying to create a true mirrorless replacement for the 7D as the above mentioned combination will suffice and generate volume for the R5.

 

[SteveC]

I know he was talking about bodies. He replied to a post of mine about lenses. Go ahead, read what he replied to.

Fair enough, I misconstrued what you were driving at here--I thought you were accusing him of making a lens comment when he was making a body comment.

I disagree, but to each his own.

Disagree? With what? I pointed out the RF mount has a diameter nearly equal to the height of an M6-II and M50 (excepting viewfinder hump). Are you claiming that's not true?

 

[jolyonralph]

My most common "casual" camera is the M6-II with the Tamron 18-200 (native mount) lens, which many have had trouble with but has never given me any. It's a bit fatter than the Canon standard diameter (filter threat is 62mm) but covers a LOT of ground, use-wise. Which is why I think the utility of the series could be greatly increased if Canon would just bend a bit on that lens diameter. It's still pretty compact (by enthusiast standards, not by point and shoot standards) even with that lens on it. Not pocketable, but light. And of course nothing stops one from putting on the 22 mm pancake (which is on my M-50 right now) and stuffing it into a pocket.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not claiming that the average EF-M buyer would give a damn about an 18-200 lens, I'm talking more about people like us. IMHO it's a great walking-around setup.

Agree. There's definitely room in the EF-M lineup for some more upmarket zooms. Fuji can do compact light 2.8-4 zooms, so I'm sure Canon could too if they wanted. But even a EF-M 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS could be a winner if as good or better than the EF-S lens.

 

[stevelee]

If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera.

High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.

 

[SteveC]

High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.

The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.

 

[nchoh]

High school sports has been the interest of a major bunch of 7D shooters, in my, admittedly limited, acquaintance.

For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option. So either way, I don't think that the 7D will be replaced with a mirrorless offering.

 

[unfocused]

For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option...

I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.

 

[SteveC]

I don't understand why people think the R6 is a viable replacement for a 7D for either sports or birding. The appeal of the 7D is getting more pixels on subject, not less, when distance limited. The R5 would make a much more viable replacement if not for the price, as the cropped pixel density is much closer to a 7DII.

Yeah, I've seen the same thing, and it's just ridiculous to claim EITHER the R6 or 1DXIII as a replacement for the 7D. The R5, as far as I know, would fill the role wonderfully, once in hand...but getting to that point is expensive. I suppose if one wanted a full frame AND a 7D replacement in one package, the R5 might make some sense, and might be cheaper than some other full frame plus a (still mythic) R7 put together. But the R6? No way. 1D? Just as inadequate in that key parameter, at three times the price!!! (What a bargain!)

No, I'm not knocking those cameras as cameras, but they cannot do the job of a 7D. Again, hammer versus screwdriver. 7D users are looking for a hammer; the world's best screwdriver won't do the job.

 

[unfocused]

...I suppose if one wanted a full frame AND a 7D replacement in one package, the R5 might make some sense, and might be cheaper than some other full frame plus a (still mythic) R7 put together...

That is probably where I am headed. For sports shooting I really needed (well maybe more wanted) the 1Dx III which replaced my 1Dx II. But, when the R5 comes down in price, I am seriously considering it as a replacement for both the 5D IV and 7D II.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.

Both of those lenses have metal mounts.

 

[koenkooi]

Both of those lenses have metal mounts.

I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm

 

[privatebydesign]

Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.

The plastic ‘spacers‘ are designed breakaways. If you are unlucky enough to drop a camera with a lens on it that ‘spacer’ is a designed in weak spot that breaks in the hope of preventing more serious damage in the lens, kind of like a cars crumple zone.

Ask me how I know!