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

[Chig]

Sounds like CR0 to me. Some random guy on the internet trolling CanonRumors Guy to get some attention.

Specs are mainly just guesses based on existing bodies.

$1699 price point is a little low for a 7DII replacement, but it would make sense if Canon wanted to price it aggressively. I've said it before: put out an M7, add a 15-85 walk around lens and a 150-500 or even 150-600 f6.3 that's a little better than the Sigma and Tamron and has a Canon label on it and most disgruntled 7D users will be happy.

No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have , we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest

 

[Chig]

There seems to be an RF über alles mindset that seems to feel threatened as long as any other cameras and lenses continue to exist. There could be some commercial or rational arguments for One Lens Mount to Rule Them All, but I never seem to see them in the posts. It reminds me of the emotional tribalism of political posts.

Don't get me wrong. Apparently there are great RF lenses and some very nice R-series cameras. The R5 sounds amazing in spite of all the bad press. I am in no way casting aspersions on everybody who owns and likes those bodies and lenses, just the convert-or-die crusaders.

I have no objection to M cameras but I will never buy one and I object to the idea of replacing the 7D ii (which is one of the best cameras ever for Birds in Flight/action) with an M mount camera. What I want is an R7 aps-c replacement and as Canon is the biggest camera maker in the world (bigger than Sony and Nikon combined) they can easily continue making M cameras as well as the RF line and also DSLRs so long as it’s worth their while

 

[highdesertmesa]

Isn't it a waste of space to use a large RF mount for an APS-C camera? The amazing thing about the M line were the small cameras that you can ALWAYS carry around in your pocket, but still have a somewhat large APS-C sensor.

The problem are locations were cameras are not appreciated, but they sometimes still allow small, not "serious" looking cameras. In that category the M line offered the best value.

The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6, so imagine if Canon only had to cover an APS-C-sized sensor with the same image circle. In addition, lenses like this STM and the 24-240 would be much better matched to an APS-C sensor and require less correction.

 

[SteveC]

The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6, so imagine if Canon only had to cover an APS-C-sized sensor with the same image circle. In addition, lenses like this STM and the 24-240 would be much better matched to an APS-C sensor and require less correction.

But of course many of the people who want an APS-C RF camera also want the APS-C lenses to go with it, so that would negate part of the IBIS advantage.

 

[SteveC]

I get it! It's just confusing as to why it would overheat at 1080P 120FPS (if it's true) when the M6 Mark II doesn't even do that!

IMHO, that's the smoking gun.

This rumor came from someone's rectal database, and that someone is no friend of Canon's. Else why put a ridiculous overheat caveat like this into the rumor, other than to light the overheat screamers off?

 

[unfocused]

...so long as it’s worth their while

Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.

No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have, we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement...

Speak for yourself. I would be fine either way. What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet Canon has.

...which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest

Okay. So you what to use EF lenses with your APS-C body. You can do that just as easily with an M mount as with an RF mount. And, you would prefer the R5, but don't want to pay that much for a body. Yet you are talking about big white EF lenses and new RF mount lenses. The big whites already cost more than the R5 and have you taken a look at the prices of RF lenses?

 

[SteveC]

Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.



Speak for yourself. I would be fine either way. What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet Canon has.



Okay. So you what to use EF lenses with your APS-C body. You can do that just as easily with an M mount as with an RF mount. And, you would prefer the R5, but don't want to pay that much for a body. Yet you are talking about big white EF lenses and new RF mount lenses. The big whites already cost more than the R5 and have you taken a look at the prices of RF lenses?

Don't confuse him with logic.

 

[unfocused]

The RF mount in front of an APS-C sensor could allow for an insane amount of IBIS+IS stabilization with a full frame RF lens. The small and light RF 24-105 STM already gets a theoretical 8 stops on the R5/6...

Good Lord, how much image stabilization do people need? The combined IBIS and lens stabilization is already more than you can use if you are taking pictures of anything that is alive...or taking pictures outside if there is even the slightest breeze...or taking pictures on a planet that rotates every 24 hours.

 

[SteveC]

Good Lord, how much image stabilization do people need? The combined IBIS and lens stabilization is already more than you can use if you are taking pictures of anything that is alive...or taking pictures outside if there is even the slightest breeze...or taking pictures on a planet that rotates every 24 hours.

Hey, if I can't take my camera out on the basketball court, dribble it like it were the ball, shoot a basket with it, and have it come out with a SHARP 30 second exposure, whoever manufactured that camera is DOOMED.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm willing to give them a pass on the issue of whether it has a 400mm prime attached, or a wide angle lens.

 

[bernie_king]

As to the 18-45 non-L, why is that materially different from the EF 17-40 non L. Just a little more range (which seems to be the norm for RF mound). It makes no sense for an APS-C lens to start at 18 and end at 45. If Canon were to make an APS-C R body, the lens of choice would be a 15-85 (arguably the most useful lens in the EF-s line).

FWIW, the EF 17-40 is an L lens

 

[Dragon]

FWIW, the EF 17-40 is an L lens

Yep, corrected. The rest holds.

 

[PerKr]

I find it odd that a decision to kill the EF-M mount would escape from Canon HQ and make it to a rumor site. And things like "cheap" EVF and overheating 1080p? Sounds more like something cooked up by Sony fanboys than a credible rumor. As long as they make money from it and don't need to do more R&D than this, they will probably keep EF-M.

that said, it does make sense to add an APS-C RF model at some point to be able to offer a lower cost model.

 

[-pekr-]

Well, yes, of course. But it follows that if they don't do as you suggest then it might not be worth their while.



Speak for yourself. I would be fine either way. What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet Canon has.



Okay. So you what to use EF lenses with your APS-C body. You can do that just as easily with an M mount as with an RF mount. And, you would prefer the R5, but don't want to pay that much for a body. Yet you are talking about big white EF lenses and new RF mount lenses. The big whites already cost more than the R5 and have you taken a look at the prices of RF lenses?

Please go find a mirror, look into it, take a deep breath and repeat to yourself - "What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet canon has. Speak for yourself".

 

[Baron_Karza]

No not really as 7D users like myself don’t want M mount cameras to replace what they have , we want an RF mount aps-c 7D replacement which we can use with our big white L EF lenses for shooting wildlife / action and later buy some new RF glass , personally I’d like to buy the R5 as a replacement for my 7D ii but the price is a bit much even though it’s the best camera ever for Birds in Flight which is my main interest

Thinking Canon should:

Keep putting out new M camera and lens. Make better M lenses.
Add APS-C camera in RP size/form bodies.
Do not create crop lenses for the RP type bodies. Just buy the R FF lenses so you can use them when/if you upgrade to FF.

But maybe also:
Create, at VERY MOST, 3 of the most commonly sold APS-C kit quality lenses. Just to get newbies started.

Some WILD & CRAZY ideas to make upgrade path to FF easier:
If not making Crop RP bodies, create an adapter to fit R lenses onto M bodies. LOL It would likely require glass.
Create new crop M bodies that have direct fit to RF lenses, but with an adapter you can still use existing EF-M lenses

 

[unfocused]

Please go find a mirror, look into it, take a deep breath and repeat to yourself - "What market research of 7D users have you conducted? I would bet canon has. Speak for yourself".

Did I say I was speaking for anyone but myself? No. I did not. I am not the one that claimed to know what other 7D users want.

 

[fingerstein]

They should kill all the crippled cameras.

 

[-pekr-]

Don't confuse him with logic.

When we speak about the logic, then what about the following arguments? For how many years there were DSLR APS-C cameras? Maybe apart from the SL1/2, they were nowhere near the small size of the M body.

The problem is not in EOS-M family cameras as per se, but in missing M bodies of certain ergonomic aspects. No 7DII user is going to switch to M5 kind of the camer imo. The other problem REALLY is the lens. Forget the EF, it's EOL, period.

So, what I think is, that Canon should keep EOS-M as a completly separate line, which perfectly fits its purpose. But then they could potentially introduced an RF mount based APS-C family. As - why not? Canon surely have numbers. Where do they move all those DLSR users to? To much smaller and different ergonomy M family? Producing bigger M body with an M mount? Makes no sense imo.

Since the R line release, my prediction is, that there is going to be APS-C R variant one day. It depends on how cheap FF can get. If APS-C could go much cheaper, than it will likely happen.

 

[Rocky]

I am wondering how many people that wants to kill the M line and want a APS-C RF mount camera have ever used a M camera???

 

[stevelee]

IMHO, that's the smoking gun.

This rumor came from someone's rectal database, and that someone is no friend of Canon's. Else why put a ridiculous overheat caveat like this into the rumor, other than to light the overheat screamers off?

The old saying is, "Generating more heat than light."

 

[SteveC]

I am wondering how many people that wants to kill the M line and want a APS-C RF mount camera have ever used a M camera???

And for some reason, that made the lightbulb light up for me.

Why so many people here aren't simply "not interested in M cameras" but rather want Canon to kill it. An awful lot of hate for something they don't have to use and can ignore if they want.

They're probably largely APS-C users who are afraid Canon is going to try to herd them into it, instead of giving them something that will use RF lenses.