The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13973"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13973">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>The next EOS M cameras


</strong>The <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/crazy-deal-canon-eos-m-w22mm-f2-299-at-bh/" target="_blank">recent sale for the EOS M</a> suggests Canon is dumping large inventory of the camera for a successor. I also think it’s partially to get people to finally buy into the system and that Canon is going to put more muscle behind the product line.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/mirrorless.html" target="_blank">source at NL</a>, Canon is going to introduce a “basic” EOS M 18mp successor first, and follow it up with a 20mp APS-C dual pixel model afterwards. The latter camera is said to be aimed at the “full frame Canon shooter”, and will have an optional viewfinder. This goes along with what <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/the-future-of-eos-m-cr1/" target="_blank">we’ve previously been told</a>.</p>
<p>Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[rpiotr01]

They won't be $299, that's for dang sure.

 

[cookinghusband]

They better have something with dual pixel soon, else not many existing eos-m user will upgrade. optional view finder is not really necessary, just give us a hdmi/usb port that work with the life view and remote.

 

[justsomedude]

Heh.

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

8)

 

[bholliman]

Heh.

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

Your prediction will be spot on if this rumor is correct. I would not be surprised however.

For me, the $299 EOS-M deal is a good one regardless. I needed a decent pocket sized camera and with recent firmware upgrade, the M is now a good option, and has the advantage of using my other Canon glass. If a new M comes along it will be significantly more than $299, so I would not be interested. New bodies come along all the time, if you always wait for the next big thing you would never buy. At some point down the road, I'll upgrade all my camera bodies with newer ones that are available at the time.

 

[brad-man]

Heh.

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

8)

How is paying $300 for a mirrorless with DSLR IQ and a small, fast, and by all accounts, sharp prime silly? That there would be an improved successor is blatantly obvious. But you're the Man.

 

[hmmm]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

 

[Etienne]

Wake me up when the dual-pixel-sensor model is available

 

[Cb33]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.

 

[Loswr]

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

Sounds spot off, to me. Maybe I'm biased because I bought one for $299. But, if this rumor is true (it's CR1, just the new 100-400 has been for what, 4 years?), the next M will be an 18 MP minor update (T5i/SL1 sensor), and the 20 MP dual pixel CMOS will follow that...but when? And 'aimed at the FF Canon shooter' sounds like a $900-1000 camera, to me. So, $299 really doesn't sound 'silly' especially when the camera + 22mm pancake only costs $85 more than the 22mm pancake alone. That way, the next M can be bought with the kit zoom (since the best way to buy a kit lens is in a kit), and even selling the body for $150 you'd come out ahead... Or you'd have a cheap body for IR conversion - one almost ideally suited for it as any lens can be used.

Just my $0.02 (or $299, as the case may be).

 

[hmmm]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.

Agreed -- I got to thinking about it and was about to follow up with a post saying that it likely be EF only because it would need the extra clearance. I also would like to revise my price guess: this will be marketed as a piece of pro gear -- a Canon teleconverter runs about $450 -- so that would likely be the ballpark for the reducer -- $450 - $500. I hope it's closer to the first guess, though!

 

[Bob Howland]

So Canon just dumped their current model at a ridiculously low price so that could introduce a very similar model?? The only reason I can see why they would do that is because they figure the current model's reputation is so bad that nobody would buy it at a higher price, so bad, in fact, that they had to incur the cost of a firmware upgrade to make it marketable even at the ridiculously low price.

I wonder if the people who decided to bring the current model to market are still working at Canon?

 

[Bob Howland]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

The 10-22 is an EF-S lens. It looks like this would only be for EF lenses only. I think you are right on the 0.63 reducer, though. I'm excited for that. The EOS-M just gets more and more appealing.

Agreed -- I got to thinking about it and was about to follow up with a post saying that it likely be EF only because it would need the extra clearance. I also would like to revise my price guess: this will be marketed as a piece of pro gear -- a Canon teleconverter runs about $450 -- so that would likely be the ballpark for the reducer -- $450 - $500. I hope it's closer to the first guess, though!

It isn't a matter of clearance, it's how large an image circle the lens throws onto the sensor. With an EF lens, the adapter shrinks the image from 43mm diameter to about 27.6mm. An EF-S lens already has a (nominal) image circle of 27.6mm so shouldn't be reduced more.

 

[infared]

When?...When?....WHEN? Will the 20mp, VF and EF lens reducer be introduced??? Is there any word on a timeline?

 

[abirkill]

I agree, something to reduce the image circle from a full-frame EF lens to match the M sensor size makes the most sense I think. This also tallies in with the suggestion in the original rumour that it will be aimed at the full-frame Canon shooter -- focal lengths would remain approximately the same.

This has certainly been one of the big reasons I haven't snapped up the current EOS-M at the bargain price -- I don't want to have to duplicate wide-angle lenses.

Am I right in thinking that such a reducer would also increase the effective light-gathering capability of a lens, as the same image will be projected on a smaller area? This would mean an f/2.8 lens could behave something like an f/2.2 lens (depending on efficiency) when mounted to the reducer (in terms of light gathering).

 

[Budka]

They won't be $299, that's for dang sure.

That's right. Surely the new version will cost the same what the original EOS-M Kit at launch: $ 800.
Maybe $749 because the "focusgate" bad press.

 

[bvukich]

"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

I would expect a factor of .707 (sqrt(2)/2) mainly because it would be an even 1 stop difference, whereas a factor of .63 comes out to a very odd 5/4ths stops.

85/1.8 would become a 60/1.3
24-70/2.8 would become 17-50/2
70-200/4 would become 50-140/2.8

I think that would be enough to make focal lengths that are only so-so on crop (24-anything) quite attractive.

 

[FunPhotons]

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.

Sounds spot off, to me. Maybe I'm biased because I bought one for $299. But, if this rumor is true (it's CR1, just the new 100-400 has been for what, 4 years?), the next M will be an 18 MP minor update (T5i/SL1 sensor), and the 20 MP dual pixel CMOS will follow that...but when? And 'aimed at the FF Canon shooter' sounds like a $900-1000 camera, to me. So, $299 really doesn't sound 'silly' especially when the camera + 22mm pancake only costs $85 more than the 22mm pancake alone. That way, the next M can be bought with the kit zoom (since the best way to buy a kit lens is in a kit), and even selling the body for $150 you'd come out ahead... Or you'd have a cheap body for IR conversion - one almost ideally suited for it as any lens can be used.

Just my $0.02 (or $299, as the case may be).

I agree. The EOS M now for $299 is a steal, with the new firmware it's a highly capable camera in a small package, and it works with my existing system (flash, lenses, ***). I've got a couple S100's which are going to probably be retired due to this camera. Sure new Mirrorless will come, who cares? I can upgrade later.

 

[eric_ykchan]

A "basic" model more basic than the current EOS-M? Will Canon sell the "basic" model at USD200?

 

[Loswr]

A "basic" model more basic than the current EOS-M? Will Canon sell the "basic" model at USD200?

Of course not, because it'll have the NEW (to mirrorless) Hybrid CMOS II sensor (aka the T5i/SL1 sensor). Plus a new scene mode or two. :