There will be an EOS M/EF-M announcement this year [CR1]

[idahobill]

There is a serious size and weight difference between the m50 with native lens and even the canon RP with native lens. Many want small cameras for travel or they will just use their iPhones - and travel is when many people use their cameras the most and why they buy new cameras in the first place.
For 95% of people, the image quality difference between the canon rp and canon m is negligible. I’ve shot wildlife in Yellowstone with an M50 with L glass and I was shocked at the ease of use and quality. I’m not going back to my DSLRs now and I’m not buying a large camera again.
When I can travel again, it will be with an iPhone and a small camera setup. Hopefully a real upgraded m series camera with EVF, like the M50 mk2 should have been. But I’m not bringing a 90d or an R6 or an RP - those are too big for me and I suspect many people.

 

[HMC11]

Canon have stated over the last couple years that their solution to this problem is to focus on high-end imaging, where the margins are much better. They can charge whatever they want for a high-end camera, as long as they give it sufficient specs to justify the cost. It costs more to manufacture, but not that much more than an APS-C unit, a lot of the components are the same… Looking at the latest report (which is tough to dissect because of Covid), the strategy seems to be working. They sold way fewer cameras this year than past years, but because so many of them were R5s/6s, profits improved quite a bit.

So, sort of to summarize the thinking is... let phones have the entire low-end market. There’s no need for EF-M, micro4/3, or other cheaper APS-C solutions. You and I both like them, but go outside and see what the majority of people are taking pictures with… we’re part of an increasingly small group. You just can’t sell enough of these “entry level” cameras anymore to make any kind of real profit to justify the effort. Instead, focus on expensive high-end cameras that can do the things that phones cannot do and won’t be able to do for the foreseeable future. You’ll sell a lot fewer cameras than you used to, but make a lot of money every time you do sell one.

That sounds entirely reasonable and logical assuming indeed that the current development trajectory of phone cameras would not be challenging the high-end market. However, the possibility of a combination of good sensors for phones and highly capable deep-learning software in the near future could well mean that, while images from phone cameras would be of lower quality compared to high-end cameras, the AI software could make up for that (eg. creating bokeh effects, denoising automatically, highly pleasing colour science, automated enhancement of dynamic range etc) and produce competitive images. As such, although I truly enjoy using a full frame camera, I can imagine switching to using a phone as I grow older and more frail if my objective is to only get excellent images. Having said this, I also realise that a large part of my enjoyment in using a 'proper' camera is the learning process that goes with it, the physics of the lens design, the techniques that can improve the image, post-processing, and perhaps most importantly, being able to constantly learn others' technique all contributed to the enjoyable experience (yes, it can be frustrating, especially at the start, but it gets better and the experience is all the most valuable because of the struggle). In short, the joy of eventually getting it right for the intended shot. Should there be an AI phone camera that can produce the images without the learning curve, I am not sure that photography would continue to be enjoyable, for me at least.

 

[Skux]

32mp sensor
IBIS
dual card slots
animal & bird eye AF
LP-E17 batteries
5 million dot EVF
Digic-X oversampled 4k

LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Pete Roberts]

32mp sensor
IBIS
dual card slots
LP-E17 batteries
5 million dot EVF

LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO

hey Canon make the new M camera with the above specs and then shut up and take my money!

 

[koenkooi]

32mp sensor
IBIS
dual card slots
LP-E17 batteries
5 million dot EVF
[..]

An M6II with a Digic X instead of Digic 8 and a CF-E type A slot would be a massive improvement for my use already. But what I want the most is a small, M1 or M200 sized model with eye-AF in servo mode. Looking at previous releases Canon would wait for the M400 to put that in :/

 

[Bob Howland]

32mp sensor
IBIS
dual card slots
LP-E17 batteries
5 million dot EVF

LETS GOOOOOOOOOOO

Keep it small and make versions with both M and RF mounts.

 

[slclick]

You won't get dual slots in an M. Nor will you get a better evf in the M than the R series. Might not ever get any new M's. CR1 after all.
But keep on hoping! Keep M alive!

 

[Maps]

I started with the M50, then upgraded to the M6II. I picked up the Sigma trio (16/30/56 F1.4) along with a few of the EF-M lenses. A few months ago I bought the R6 but kept the M6II and lenses for times when I want to travel light. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE one final upgraded M body with IBIS and better 4k video (closer in quality to the 10bit Fuji XT4) and I would be a happy camper . I know the future is with the R mount but the M system definitely has it's place in the market I think

If you have a second, I’d really like to hear your thoughts (or anyone else in the same boat) on going M50 -> M6II -> R6. I know the specs, I’m more interested in your observations. Where was the biggest gain in image quality? To your eye, how big a difference is there between the three in 1080p? 4k? Obviously the 4k crop/AF loom large for the M50 here, but if we disregard those, did you find the actual IQ much improved on the M6II?

Was there a huge jump in any aspect that really stood out to you among these three cameras? If you could do it over again, would you have bothered with the M6II? Or the M50 for that matter? Hypothetically, what would a potential M mount flagship need to have looked like to have kept you from moving to the R mount? Or did you just need FF no matter what?

 

[Maps]

That sounds entirely reasonable and logical assuming indeed that the current development trajectory of phone cameras would not be challenging the high-end market. However, the possibility of a combination of good sensors for phones and highly capable deep-learning software in the near future could well mean that, while images from phone cameras would be of lower quality compared to high-end cameras, the AI software could make up for that (eg. creating bokeh effects, denoising automatically, highly pleasing colour science, automated enhancement of dynamic range etc) and produce competitive images. As such, although I truly enjoy using a full frame camera, I can imagine switching to using a phone as I grow older and more frail if my objective is to only get excellent images. Having said this, I also realise that a large part of my enjoyment in using a 'proper' camera is the learning process that goes with it, the physics of the lens design, the techniques that can improve the image, post-processing, and perhaps most importantly, being able to constantly learn others' technique all contributed to the enjoyable experience (yes, it can be frustrating, especially at the start, but it gets better and the experience is all the most valuable because of the struggle). In short, the joy of eventually getting it right for the intended shot. Should there be an AI phone camera that can produce the images without the learning curve, I am not sure that photography would continue to be enjoyable, for me at least.

For sure. My number one complaint about computational photography is that it is just so terribly boring. It at least seems like Canon are confident that FF is safe from incursion for the foreseeable future. They certainly seem to be investing to that effect. I assume (or hope) that decision is based on solid evidence.

 

[Richard CR]

Stop me if I’m wrong here, but wasn’t the wording “strong-selling” or something to that effect? I don’t remember them saying anything about “profitable”. Could be wrong? But one, one thousand, one million, or one trillion X $0 all equal $0.

Everything has a profit margin, or it's simply not made. the idea that it' has $0 is disingenuous.

if they don't increase mount market share, then they may win the battle but they will most certainly lose the war.
chasing higher and higher margins on more expensive gear will simply destroy the industry faster, and will most certainly destroy their imaging system sales over time.

Sony has been interesting, careful, in stating that they tweak a product mix. Meaning that they still feel a spot for lower margin, but there's a mix there that has to happen.

The idea that Canon could / would dump all lower cost / lower margin items to chase higher margins, would literally be a "Canon is D00MED" moment. D**med is a banned word? Really? People thinking that chasing higher margin profits is a good thing, it's not, it's actually quite alarming.

 

[Richard CR]

I think Canon has gone back and forth with the M system. At first they just wanted in the Mirrorless game without cannibalizing their cash cow - the DSLR. Later when the writing was on the wall they realized they'd have to bring out the EF equivalent mirrorless and have an advantage over Sony's tiny mount so they came out with the RF. Now they have a problem, the bean counters don't like that Canon is developing more than one type of sensor and they have to create two types of lenses.

This is all fiction though. Canon never has had a problem selling specific cameras to narrow markets, and they certainly had no qalms about selling the EF-M and EF-S cameras to the same markets and let the consumers decide.

 

[Maps]

Everything has a profit margin, or it's simply not made. the idea that it' has $0 is disingenuous.

True. Didn’t think anyone was going to take that literally. It’s certainly not zero. I don’t think it’s very far off though.

People thinking that chasing higher margin profits is a good thing, it's not, it's actually quite alarming.

For sure. I wouldn't say I like it. I just think it’s what’s happening. Take a look at any of their guidance from the past few years. For instance, from the latest we have...

“We [Canon] will work to further strengthen our lineup of EOS R cameras and RF lenses to facilitate our aim of expanding our market share among professional and advanced amateur users where demand is solid."

 

[TAF]

Here's what I'd like to see for the M, or most preferably a compact R series: No bump on top, but a viewfinder in rangefinder style. Like a Sony 7C or the Leica CL, only Canon excellent and Canon reasonably priced. An APS-C would be very cool, but if it's an RF mount and the same sensor as the R5, I'd buy one. Or two.

I believe that something like this exists in prototype form, because I saw something that looked a lot like what you describe in the wild a couple of years ago.

It was just in passing (the fellow with it was walking the other way and I was with the family so I couldn't turn around and ask).

And yes, I would be interested as well...

 

[TAF]

and a retooled set of EF-M lenses with power zoom functionality would get a lot of attention for uses like vlogging, drone cams, travel cams, and crash cams.

This. With the FAA making the maximum weight of an unregistered drone 250g (essentially making you register most anything that can fly outdoors), there is no reason not to go somewhat larger (the price increase is more linear than exponential) and put a real camera on your drone. The M would be perfect.

Since Sony has decided to get into the drone market, perhaps Canon will as well?

 

[TAF]

If it means an M5 Mark II with a DIGIC 8 or X processor, IBIS, and Animal Eye AF, then I'm all for it!

How about this:

Take the R6 sensor and trim it to APS-C for the really large photosites

So 12.5mp (did I do that math right?) with the DigicX and all the firmware of the R6.

Call it the M6LL (low light)

Perfect discrete walkabout camera/surveillance camera.

 

[Ioan]

I hope it will come to fruition. I am too a canon EOS M enthusiast, I was waiting for this moment, because I want to upgrade with the newest model.
It's a very good camera, for the quality/price it is hard to beat.

 

[SteveC]

So 12.5mp (did I do that math right?) with the DigicX and all the firmware of the R6.

You didn't. you have to divide by (1.6 x 1.6) or 2.56 which, starting with 20mp leaves you with 7.8+ MP. (If 20 MP isn't right for the R6, please disregard.)

 

[grantmasterflash]

How about this:

Take the R6 sensor and trim it to APS-C for the really large photosites

So 12.5mp (did I do that math right?) with the DigicX and all the firmware of the R6.

Call it the M6LL (low light)

Perfect discrete walkabout camera/surveillance camera.

There's no reason for that. I think the APS-C sensors are beyond the R6 sensor if you were to crop it to APS-C size. For instance the m6 mk II sensor would be about 100mp if you scaled it up. The new Digic X however would be great.

 

[HMC11]

So 12.5mp (did I do that math right?) with the DigicX and all the firmware of the R6.

Actually, it would only be about 7.8mp, but the direction of thinking is interesting

Edit: Apologies, just noted that someone had already pointed this out.

 

[HMC11]

The idea that Canon could / would dump all lower cost / lower margin items to chase higher margins, would literally be a "Canon is D00MED" moment. D**med is a banned word? Really? People thinking that chasing higher margin profits is a good thing, it's not, it's actually quite alarming.

Indeed, if that was the strategy. The assumption about always striving to make a profit is more than likely a very sound one. As to how they do this is another matter. It could, for instance, be that despite the low margin in the M line, Canon continues to sustain it because (a) it brings new photographers into the canon brand via a relatively inexpensive pathway; and (b) by selling tons of M line gear, there could be a higher chance of those who bought into M continuing with Canon when they move into the FF space. We can never be sure, but I reckon that keeping the M line alive for the foreseeable future might make sense for these reasons alone unless, of course, they are able to replicate the M line through the RF-APSC or some such. If they completely abandon the M line, then it would be interesting to understand their thinking.