The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]

[TinTin]

All this only ever matters if you are going to shoot using the back of the LCD screen, if you only ever plan to use the EVF then I guess it doesn’t really matter.

If you're only going to use the EVF, a fully-articulated screen has the advantage of being able to turn it screen-inwards, to keep it protected. If you're going to use the EVF, but want the screen for moving the focal point, then it doesn't matter.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

It isn't so much this but the fact that Canon in recent years has catered to vloggers and videographers. Then the fanboys start to wave it like it's something everyone needs, but look at the amount of backlash Fuji has got from still photographers for utilizing a similar screen on the XT-4.

I understand that some people may not like it. That’s their prerogative. But the OP I was replying to specifically used the word ”crippling”. And there’s a world of difference between “I don’t like it” and “the camera is crippled by it” Nobody replying can seem to bridge that gap.

 

[brad-man]

I very much look forward to an M5ll. The M6ll specs coupled with improved weather sealing is all I require, everything else will be gravy. While the 22 pancake is a great compact companion, I'm not too confident it will be a match for the new sensor. I would like an f/1.4 version akin to the 32mm. The 52 f/2 will be welcome as well, particularly if they give it macro capability. It's good to dream...

 

[melgross]

I think the floppy display thing is interesting. Some won’t buy a camera unless it has one, and some won’t buy a camera if it does.

what is a manufacturer to do.

a floppy display is definitely more useful. But a built-in display is definitely more secure and reliable

 

[OneSnark]

I very much look forward to an M5ll. The M6ll specs coupled with improved weather sealing is all I require, everything else will be gravy. While the 22 pancake is a great compact companion, I'm not too confident it will be a match for the new sensor. I would like an f/1.4 version akin to the 32mm. The 52 f/2 will be welcome as well, particularly if they give it macro capability. It's good to dream...

I simply don't get the entire M line.

Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.

Personally, I just don't see the point of buying a compact system like this if the only reasonable lenses are a 22 prime and 32 prime. If I want a *small travel* camera, I would want a pair of zooms. Not to be a snob; but if I am buying a top flight body; I would not think to pair it with F6.3 zooms. I don't need F2 zooms. . .but F4 zooms are quite useful.

. . . .And if I am going to lug EF lenses around, then that defeats the purpose of "compact kit"; and I may as well have an EF body with me.
. . .And I love shooting with primes. I have more than 3. When I travel, however, I still need the zooms for the casual pics.

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

Sorry but, no, that's not how it works. The f-stop number is an expression of the ratio of size of the aperture diameter compared to the focal length of the lens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the imaging sensor. Saying that the 52mm is the equivalent of 85mm doesn't make it an 85mm lens, it only makes a statement about the relative difference in capture area between APS-C and full frame. But you're still shooting with a 52mm lens, and the expression of aperture to focal length doesn't change. Similarly, the smaller imaging sensor isn't magnifying the image, just capturing less of it. The whole confusion about 1.6x "magnification" between APS-C and Full Frame is only discussing the image that arrives on the sensor, and is completely unaffected by the lens, the aperture, or the actual focal length. It only is an expression that the image that the sensor captured appeared to have been taken with an equivalently larger focal length. The camera doesn't suddenly capture less light, only less of the image that arrives at the sensor. If you don't believe me, take the same lens and try it on both an APS-C camera and a full frame camera, and spot meter the center of the frame. You'll find that the same conditions deliver the same EVs for both.

I was writing about equivalent depth of field here. This rumored 52mm f2 will be a lens aimed mainly at portraiture, in which case a shallower depth of field is preferred. A 52mm f2 lens shot wide open on an APS-C sensor will paint the same depth of field as an 85mm lens shot at f3.2 on a FF sensor. As for what you are explaining, yes, same EV, but not same overall amount of light captured by each sensor. For example, given the same exact EV, an image shot with a 25mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3 sensor (2x crop) will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 32mm f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop), which itself will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF sensor. Don't trust me? Go ahead and try it, I have, that's why I unloaded all my 4/3 gear. I'll still be shooting FF were it not for the heft and size of my previous setup. Canon's APS-C M system is my goldilocks in terms of size/weight/IQ compromise.

 

[brad-man]

I simply don't get the entire M line.

Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.

Personally, I just don't see the point of buying a compact system like this if the only reasonable lenses are a 22 prime and 32 prime. If I want a *small travel* camera, I would want a pair of zooms. Not to be a snob; but if I am buying a top flight body; I would not think to pair it with F6.3 zooms. I don't need F2 zooms. . .but F4 zooms are quite useful.

. . . .And if I am going to lug EF lenses around, then that defeats the purpose of "compact kit"; and I may as well have an EF body with me.
. . .And I love shooting with primes. I have more than 3. When I travel, however, I still need the zooms for the casual pics.

I understand your pessimism, but the ratio of size to quality of output is still high. If Canon would just release a proper telephoto macro and a 17-50mm f/4 zoom built to EF-M 32mm standards, it would be phenomenal. As always, YMMV...

 

[PeterT]

IBIS ticks one very important box for me. I was waiting for a "small" APS-C body with IBIS from Canon or Fuji.
Fuji just announced X-T4, which is for me one step to the right direction, but still quite big and quite expensive. So while I will wait whether its price settles down (with the emphasis on down) and whether the (probably upcoming soon) X-T40 will have IBIS, too, I can also wait for this new Canon E-M5II.

It would be a cheaper upgrade for me than any Fuji because having some EF and F-S lenses to start with. But, similarly to others in this discussion, I think that adapted lenses are good only for a while, later I would like to use a native lens. Thanks to Canon and Sigma, we have (will have in near future) a good set of native primes from 16 to 56. So a 52mm f/2 (maybe pancake) is, in my opinion, useless (unless it is really small, very decent IQ and noticeably cheaper than the sigma 56 f1.4). On the other hand, I would like to see an 85mm f/2 and/or 105mm f/2 "soon". Even a 15mm f/2 would make more sense to me (because the Sigma 16mm is just way too huge for the M system) than a 52 f/2.

But what bothers me more is that the M system has no suitable native walkaround/travel zoom for me (I "grew up" the superzooms, they are just too low IQ for me). Currently I love my 15-85mm 3.5-5,6 IS on 80D. Adapting it means adding 26mm to its length. And it is also quite heavy for a smaller body because of its IS. So I am hesitating to enter the M line if I do not see coming soon a zoom like 15-85 (or at least 80, or in worst case 75) f4-5,6 without IS, which would be not longer than my current lens (i.e. the final length would be less by the length of the adapter) and possibly a bit smaller in diameter (because of the lack of IS).

So it seems that I will sit on the fence between Canon and Fuji for a while (at least a year) and still using my 80D, which is for me technically sufficient and I can do nice pictures with it, but it is just too big and heavy.

 

[sulla]

I think it's good to see Canon keeps M alive. To have a small, light APS-C system with small, light bodies and lenses is much better in my view than to have much larger RF-Lenses used for large APS-C R-bodies. I'm a fan of keeping R and M systems separated, even if that means incompatibility of the lenses, because with compatibility come heavy compromises. I was never a fan of EF lenses on APS-C EOS bodies and never a fan of EF-S lenses either. And the R5 being such a fast camera (in terms of fps) eliminates the need of an "R7" APS-C.
You want it light and small? The M is for you.
Want best IQ and low-light capability? Shoot for the R.

 

[BillB]

I simply don't get the entire M line.

Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.

Personally, I just don't see the point of buying a compact system like this if the only reasonable lenses are a 22 prime and 32 prime. If I want a *small travel* camera, I would want a pair of zooms. Not to be a snob; but if I am buying a top flight body; I would not think to pair it with F6.3 zooms. I don't need F2 zooms. . .but F4 zooms are quite useful.

. . . .And if I am going to lug EF lenses around, then that defeats the purpose of "compact kit"; and I may as well have an EF body with me.
. . .And I love shooting with primes. I have more than 3. When I travel, however, I still need the zooms for the casual pics.

Some people find EF-M zooms that work for them, others don't.

 

[stevelee]

I briefly looked at the M50 for my travel camera, but decided that the G5X II was a better fit for my purposes. The G7X II had served me quite well. With upgrade I found the little popup EVF and the slightly longer zoom handy. I am favorably disposed toward the M series, but don’t really have a use case to justify buying one. I don’t use my T3i any more since I got the 6D2. But I can see the appeal of the Ms.

 

[vangelismm]

I really like the m6 II, but I would immediately throw it under the bus for:

• M5 II
• At least the M6 II performance & spec
• Weather Sealed / sturdier body
• IBIS
• Improved tracking
• Improved battery life
• EVF capable of following action
• EF-M 100-300 would be a buy if no more than a f5.6 (doubt this because of the trend of f7.1 on the R)

Basically an X-T4 in an M body. I have don't mind adapting EF lenses for the time being, ALTHOUGH I will be moving to the R and would like to eventually replace my EF lenses. This would be an issue if I want some compatia

I am simple man, just give me M6 II with integrated EVF and call it M5 II.

 

[Dragon]

I think the floppy display thing is interesting. Some won’t buy a camera unless it has one, and some won’t buy a camera if it does.

what is a manufacturer to do.

a floppy display is definitely more useful. But a built-in display is definitely more secure and reliable

A fixed display is more reliable than a tilty/flippy, but a flip-up/flip-down display is not, and that is really the other alternative in the discussion.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

I was writing about equivalent depth of field here. This rumored 52mm f2 will be a lens aimed mainly at portraiture, in which case a shallower depth of field is preferred. A 52mm f2 lens shot wide open on an APS-C sensor will paint the same depth of field as an 85mm lens shot at f3.2 on a FF sensor. As for what you are explaining, yes, same EV, but not same overall amount of light captured by each sensor. For example, given the same exact EV, an image shot with a 25mm f1.4 lens on a 4/3 sensor (2x crop) will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 32mm f1.4 lens on an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop), which itself will be one stop noisier than the same exact image shot with a 50mm f1.4 lens on a FF sensor. Don't trust me? Go ahead and try it, I have, that's why I unloaded all my 4/3 gear. I'll still be shooting FF were it not for the heft and size of my previous setup. Canon's APS-C M system is my goldilocks in terms of size/weight/IQ compromise.

That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen. The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly. As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance. Either way, I think we can both agree that the aperture shouldn't have been referenced at all in the original post, and the 52mm is equivalent to 85 should've been it.

That being said, I will say that I have been shooting with Canon for nearly four decades, and transitioned from film to digital in-brand to leverage my existing equipment. So I have no experience with the micro 4/3 format as far as size of equipment, etc. But I do agree with you as far as the M series performance vs. size. I have taken my Ms to Europe twice now, and have dearly enjoyed them. I rented an EOS RP for a week-long domestic trip last July, and loved it - particularly the performance of the RF lens that I rented. But the difference in size is hard to get past - even with a smaller FF body like the RP.

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen. The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly. As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance. Either way, I think we can both agree that the aperture shouldn't have been referenced at all in the original post, and the 52mm is equivalent to 85 should've been it.

That being said, I will say that I have been shooting with Canon for nearly four decades, and transitioned from film to digital in-brand to leverage my existing equipment. So I have no experience with the micro 4/3 format as far as size of equipment, etc. But I do agree with you as far as the M series performance vs. size. I have taken my Ms to Europe twice now, and have dearly enjoyed them. I rented an EOS RP for a week-long domestic trip last July, and loved it - particularly the performance of the RF lens that I rented. But the difference in size is hard to get past - even with a smaller FF body like the RP.

I suggest you use a DOF calculator, inputting all the variables I have mentioned, and see the calculated results, I think you will find them surprising.

What I am arguing is that my $350 M5+a $410 Sigma 56mm f1.4, both brand new, do not provide the same amount of subject isolation and noise performance as a (currently) $375 Nikon D600+a $300 Nikon 85mm f1.8G, both in slightly used condition (I don't use a 6D+85mm f1.8 USM as reference because the 6D sensor is actually slightly worse than the M5's at 100 ISO, and the 85mm f1.8 USM is a very old optic design, albeit you will probably get them both at even lower prices; also I did own the mentioned Nikon gear but never any bayonet mount FF Canon gear, only breech lock AE-1 Program and FD 50mm f1.4). A 52mm f2 STM that will very likely cost around $500 (it is certainly not going to be a cheap pancake like the 22mm f2, not if Canon intends it to resolve 32Mp) will give even less subject isolation than any of the mentioned combos, which doesn't make economical sense to me. So I'll probably just settle with a Viltrox 56mm f1.4 when it becomes available at probably $200 as long as it outperforms my current 50mm f1.8 STM+EF to M adapter in IQ and AF speed.

 

[Dragon]

I simply don't get the entire M line.

Well, I understand wanting an "Interchangable lens compact mirrorless"; but from what I see is that Canon setup the "M" line with a bunch of cheap consumer zooms; a couple of mid-grade primes. . . . and then push new-body after new-body.

Personally, I just don't see the point of buying a compact system like this if the only reasonable lenses are a 22 prime and 32 prime. If I want a *small travel* camera, I would want a pair of zooms. Not to be a snob; but if I am buying a top flight body; I would not think to pair it with F6.3 zooms. I don't need F2 zooms. . .but F4 zooms are quite useful.

. . . .And if I am going to lug EF lenses around, then that defeats the purpose of "compact kit"; and I may as well have an EF body with me.
. . .And I love shooting with primes. I have more than 3. When I travel, however, I still need the zooms for the casual pics.

Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob .

 

[slclick]

First off,I want to know what is top flight about the M line. We have our usual group discussing myriad shortcomings of features on a mid level line, a line which is a great tool in the right hands.A line which bridges consumer to enthusiast. Seems like every thread about a body or a lens on CR which is not red ringed or full frame has folks coming out of the woodwork and moaning how it's not this and not that. fwiw, you'll never get your custom ala carte body. It doesn't exist. So, acceptance is in order.

Crippling. It really brings out the worst in someone when they start with that term. If we didn't have differentiation we'd have nothing but Leicas and Holgas. CR has been so glass half empty lately, it's very sad. Especially in an era with so many choices... we're spoiled and many of you are acting like brats. Why not look at all the innovation and options and be simply amazed? It's there.

 

[slclick]

Actually, all the M zooms are technically quite good. If you are trying to capture memories of things you saw as opposed to "creating photographic art", then the difference between f/4 and f6.3 is pretty much immaterial other than in low light. More often than not, if you are shooting with an f/4 L zoom on a FF or crop body in program mode, the camera will pick f/7.1 to f/10 as the nominal choice. If you made either of the longer M zooms f/4, they would be huge compared to the rest of the kit. And yes, you are being a bit of an aperture snob .

The 11-22 zoom is very good.

 

[Kit.]

That's still not correct though. There's no appreciable change in depth of field rendering based on size of sensor. It doesn't see through the lens differently or change the optics of the lens, which is what would have to happen.

There's an obvious difference between a lens looking onto the world using a 52/2 mm entrance pupil and a lens looking onto the world using a 85/2 mm entrance pupil. The former produces background bokeh balls up to 52/2 mm in diameter (in object plane dimensions), the latter 85/2 mm.

The idea of there being a 1.6x change in effective aperture is a wive's tale, and has been proven false repeatedly.

The idea that the lens rendering of the world (as well as the amount of light the lens gathers from the scene) is basically defined by the lens entrance pupil's position, form and size is very easy to demonstrate to people who have even basic understanding of ray optics.

The people who, instead, try to play with formulas without understanding the physics behind them, are very easy to confuse themselves into "proving false" practically everything.

As for your noise, again you're trying to ascribe a difference in the sensor performance to the optics of the lens. Just isn't happening. Nobody in their right mind would argue that a smaller sensor isn't going to produce more noise than a larger sensor over the same image. But that has absolutely zero to do with the lens used, and everything to do with the sensor performance.

The lens with the same entrance pupil focused on the sensor capturing the same angle of view during the same exposure time will produce the same photon shot noise no matter what the sensor size/focal distance is. The DoF/bokeh rendering will also be about the same. The smaller sensor will get a higher exposure (energy per unit of area), though, so it would need to be kept at lower ISO to prevent overexposure. If this ISO is lower than the sensor's base ISO, overexposure will happen anyway.

 

[stevelee]

While I'm clearly on the side with those who believe that the laws of optics don't change just because you put the lens on a camera with a different sensor size, I will add that depth of field discussions become a bit more complicated. Generally for smaller sensors we prefer smaller circles of confusion, so the DOF calculators will take that into account.

"Equivalent" is a short-cut word that works fine as long as the parties involved agree on the answer to "in what way?" Most of us most of the time seem to mean just in terms of angle of view.