And this comes just *hours* after the announcement of the Fujifilm X-T4... coincidence? or controlled leak?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I mostly strongly agree, however, the 55-250 EF-S is great size and balance and high quality on the M6II, and the EF-S 60 macro is just fine as well, noticeably smaller even with MT24 or similar flash. The only problem then is the palm of your thumb mashing buttons, which is such a problem I'm going to get a cage/grip for macro. The 90D wouldn't have had that problem, but choices have to be made.....The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.
As for price points, I am thinking if they take the features of the M6 II, add an EVF/IBIS, better build quality (i.e. the rumor) then you basically have the Fuji XT4 (sure, hairs can be split, but ballpark). The X-T3 is $1,800. I can see Canon moving the M5 II price put up pretty significantly from the $950 the M5 came in at. I am thinking $1,200-1,400. Which leaves room for the m50 and M6 II (no IBIS, no EVF, lessor build quality) below.
The M50 is basically a Rebel equivalent while the M5 is a 90D/7D type of camera.
Different category and price points.
Side swivel displays aren't going anywhere. One of the fastest growing uses for these cameras is vlogging, where having a swivel screen saves you $$$$ from having to purchase an external display and/or renders the camera practically useless to the vlogger if they record on the move.Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.
And then, there are those who actually understand optimization and simply by both. Horses for courses. If that mentioned M5 replacement comes down the pike I will preorder it. DItto for the 100-400 (120-360). I think the M5 II is waiting for the new processor so as to fit 90D style video processing (or maybe even better) into the small battery. Just a bit more girth to add a tilty-flippy would be completely acceptable.Considering everything we continue to read about how well this series sells, I don’t have a single reason why Canon should abandon it. The people who insist they MUST have a single mirrorless mount are wrong. There are apparently a lot of people out there who like this smaller, lighter system. They don’t seem to care about faster, pro level lenses either. They also don’t seem interested in moving to full frame. If they did, they wouldn’t be buying into this, knowing there’s no direct upgrade path.
Canon knows what’s selling. If they are going to upgrade the line, they must feel as though there’s a good market for it. People need to stop whining about it.
Sorry, but tilty-flippys are far more than "selfie displays". They are useable from the back, the top, the bottom, and the front and all angles in between, not to mention less fragile than the typical flip up/down display with its exposed flex cable.Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.
I really think this decision comes down to how many lenses would you really use with the M if you have an R as your main body. Personally, if I were going to be using a larger lens it would make no sense to put it on the M body.Unless I really want a smaller body at that price I will go R series.
I am disappointed at lack of compatibility between the r and M cameras.
Drop the M mount, change to R mount and keep the same small body form with APSC sensor. Make small APSC lenses for it but allow large FF RF lenses to also mount. The FF RF would use the APSC lenses cropped as they do now with EFs lenses.
Just do not want to mess with 2 systems any more.
I would like to see an M-mount body with the sensor from the M6II, the DIGIC X processor, IBIS, a really good EVF, tilty-flippy screen, a single CFExpress card slot, and using the LP-E6N battery. Combine that with the upcoming EF-M 100-400 (which is really a 120-360), or use an adapter to use it with any EF-S or EF glass.
Replace the CFE slot with UHS II and replace digicx with digic9 (the consumer flavor) and probably skip the weather seal and you have an M5 II. All the rest makes sense. Not much sense in adding weather seal to an M body when none of the lenses have it. The rest makes sense.I think you are talking an R type camera with a APS-C sensor.
Replace the CFE slot with UHS II and replace digicx with digic9 (the consumer flavor) and probably skip the weather seal and you have an M5 II. All the rest makes sense. Not much sense in adding weather seal to an M body when none of the lenses have it. The rest makes sense.
Love my M50 when hiking in the wilderness. Small form function is perfectly suited for this, so, a native EF-M 52mm F2 would be a great compliment to my EF-M 22mm F2. Look fwd to seeing this lens come to fruition. I really like my Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART zoom but it's just such a big heavy lens, especially since you need the EF-M adapter to be able to use it on the M50, thus making the combo much bigger than I like for camping/hiking. So, the Sigma usually gets left behind. Just glad to see Canon will continue to support the M series bodies.