iPhone will not produce better or worse pictures than a photographic tool.
iPhone may produce an unpleasant photographic experience.

For $1000 you won't find a new camera that will do the job. If you genuinely want to learn and enjoy photography, consider buying used.

I sold my 5D (classic) a couple weeks ago for less than £200. It had only been used for about 18,000 shutter actuations. It's rated to 150,000 so will last ages. If you shoot raw, you can process images to be just as good as anything you see anywhere. Get Lightroom.

I advised the buyer to pick up an EF 35mm f2 IS USM lens to go with it, and see how they get on. Maybe add an EF 85mm f1.8 USM too, and even a 20mm f2.8 USM. All three lenses focus super fast and can provide excellent image quality.

The whole pro-level three lens kit could be bought for $1000. If I were you though, I'd get a 5DII or 5DIII as they have some worthwhile features, and share batteries with the latest mirrorless pro models. By the time you've improved your photography, the R5/R6 will be affordable, and the lenses will all be useable on them with an EF-RF adapter.

I mean the size & price difference between the R50 & the M50 - the former is larger & more expensive (at launch) than the latter.

As far as I can see the launch price of the M50 (in the US) was $779 (CanonWatch 2018) and the launch price of the R50 is $679 ( B&H today). Also the R50 appears a to be lighter than the M50 and almost the same size…….again not sure that you have this fully correct ……😊

The RFS lens lineup is.... garbage. Embarrassingly slow, worse than previous generation, i mean it just goes on.

Once it has a real set of lenses, the EFM lineup - complete with sigma primes(!)- will continue to crush it. Canon doesn't seem to be in any rush to get these lenses out of the door either.

As well, super light bodies + no ibis = recipe for soft images.

Not trying to be a debbie downer, just going on my experience as an owner of 3 M bodies. The best RFS owners can cope for is re-housed EFM lenses.

@Edward I agree re the 22mm f2. But what else is missing? I can't see Canon updating the ef-m 50 something when you can just use an rf 50 f1.8 without adapter. Also the 16mm would work quite well as a small kit, as would the 85 f2.

Bit pricy but you can use them on a full frame R too, something you couldn't previously do with EF-S or EF-M.

Really the only lenses missing are the 22mm f2, and a cheapo ultrawide zoom?

2 ways maybe. 1. Lightroom or equivalent will remove the cast. 2. Portable LED lights, they often have colour temp control.

My g12 ...so rugged, so awesome, so many great captures at home and abroad.

90% of consumers who buy cameras don't even know the features you talk about exists. They just buy a camera based on brand and price(!) to do casual shots and videos.
Things like autofocus, touch screen and size / ergonomics are much more important for them than lens F stop or sensor size. You have to design any product with the targeted end user
in mind. Someone who buys a cheap APS-C might not appreciate a complicated autofocus system with millions of settings or 52 customizable buttons.

I knew someone who had a DSLR with multiple lenses and wasn't even sure what was the sensor size in his camera.

Andyyy, they are also fooled to think that their smartphones are a suitable replacement for a real camera as well....yet here we are!

Yes, you may argue that 50/1,8 is a closer comparison (especially if price is a factor), but I did compromise a bit also on Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM. Size-wise the M-kit would replace a point and shoot in my suitcase, while the R-series alternatives may lose to e.g Sony RX100 Mk...
IQ-wise, the Sigma 56/1,4 is very hard to beat, I would say the 50/1,8 doesn’t come close (using max aperture).

Welcome to the world of inflation, and a total market of under 6 million bodies a year, you meant to say.

Back2Nature: The D3500 was into that Range 2018, with the way good AF-P 18-55 Kitlens. And it was even cheaper, as bundle with the 70-300 VR AF-P. Both are excellent lenses. I've posted 2019 the reviews from Ming Thein. Resumee is, if one can't make a decent picture with that gear - you simply can't with any other gear, and that's fact.

For example, i still have fun with my old D40 sometimes, i even got a 2nd body, because nowadays it was way cheap, compared to what i've paid into 2006. Yes, it does have (many) limitations, but it's worlds more fun - to work along that, than with current high tech gear.

See the Review:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/05/14/in-praise-of-crappy-hardware/
And Nikkor 70-300 VR AF-P DX here:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2019/06/22/nikon-af-p-70-300mm-f4-5-6-3-dx-vr-g-review/

Seen that combo for <480 EUR, with Nikon Bag, extra 16GB Card, and PSP License, back into the day. That was a bargain. Unlike entry level gear 2023...

Good light.

Mark, That D40 CCD delivers very beautiful colors, same sensor as my Epson R-D1... those are collectible cameras for sure.

WHAT! 30 bucks? I have let go of a few D80s in like new condition in the past, I might try to find a nice D40 too and we will have an agreement in gear for once LOL :(

Canon R10, Nikon Z50, Olympus Em10

DPR has a feature search, these results are for built-in flash:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#criterias=SpecsCoreParams%2CSpecsFlashSearch&paramSpecsCoreParamsBodyType=RangefinderStyleMirrorless%2CSLRStyleMirrorless%2CCompactSLR%2CMidSizeSLR%2CLargeSLR&paramSpecsFlashSearch=builtin

The Canon M50 came before the Nikon Z50...

And Pentax K50 came much before Canon M50. But that's besides the point, the fact is that the Canon R50, if you change some external curvy shapes, ressembles a lot, in concept and characteristics, to the Z50. I hope is as good.

With your answer you outline the absurdity of your own reasoning. And if you read English, you could see that I mention differences in shape: is that all?

Sorry if you got that perception, but to be honest, you sound very nasty to me, in the first place.

No, the biggest convincing thing on 'real' cameras is the iq advantage. Shallow dof comes maybe second but more like third. I would say af, too.

@Hawkypuck - obviously there's an image quality difference (lack of oversharpening, improved tonality/dynamic range without ugly HDR compositing artifacts like halos, lower noise floor and therefore reduced Noise Reduction artifacts), but shallow DoF is something that people can recognize when the image is being viewed on a phone or on a 2-inch thumbnail, and will immediately get the reaction from beginners that the image looks professional. Many of those Image Quality differences are hard for people to describe when they don't know what to look for, so it's easy for them to be unaware of those differences as a selling point for a camera.

At least with MILCs it's a bit easier to get to the sensor with your blower/swab/brush!

None of my film cameras have auto sensor cleaning either, but they took some great photos.

@MyReality
"None of my film cameras have auto sensor cleaning either, but they took some great photos."

Difference is, a piece of dirt on the film only affected that one shot; when you advanced the film, it was gone (unless it was a hair or other material adhering near the focal plane shutter and protruding into the light path, not common).

With the R50, and its lack of sensor cleaning, every single shot from a once-in-a-lifetime trip, or unique moments with family and friends, could be marred by sensor dirt.

Fujifilm alone by my count now has six APS-C IBIS bodies in circulation, with more on the way in April.

I find the lack of IBS in a 2023 camera shocking.
Always a Pentax DSLR user, I've had IBS in everything since my K10 from 2016 Even my little, bottom of the line K500 has IBS.

Even my little old 2008 Pentax K200D is weather sealed and has a SR system🤣🤣
Got it recently for 15€...

Fuji X100v, XE4, and XPro cameras do not have IBIS and nobody is crying about it, in fact people is paying more than twice the cost of this camera for used samples.

I think that is finefor retro- and classic-styled cameras, because the cameras and desibbs they are copying back in the day did not have ibis. But for a modern styled cam, it's pothetic.

@marximus MILC for $700 with IBIS? E-M10 IV. MFT has had IBIS as standard for many years, and unlike some of these cameras, has a very wide lens choice.

@Foskito - I'm very disappointed that the XE4 doesn't have IBIS, might have bought it if it had. It's also a very old product set, as per the XPro. People paying $$$$ for X100v are clearly not cash strapped and don't have a particular need for IBIS at that FL anyway.

Congratulations to them. They enjoyed their cameras and still going to for a few years.

It still sells well, so will Canon really orphan it?

Yes they can, and they will. In Japan the EOS M50 M2 is called the Kiss M2, and Canon Japan has announced that the Kiss line will be going away after its 30 year run with the introduction of the R50.
Interestingly the Rebel line is part of the Kiss line in Japan too, so this might also be the end of the Rebel, and entry level DSLR's too.
As noted on page 7 of this article, "it's been four and a half years since the last EF-M lens launch and two and a half years since the last new EOS M body."
Canon walked away from this system, the last major camera update was the M6 Mark 2 in 2019 when it received the 33mp sensor replacing the 24mp sensor of the M6. The M50 M2 and M200 seem to just be minor upgrades over their predecessors, likely to help streamline component costs.
EF-M is done, just as A-Mount is done, just as F-Mount will be soon enough, and EF isn't far behind.
The world moves forward, and the products of yesterday will become obsolete and fade into history.

@Papa Whisky

The Canon Kiss is, apparently, the Kiss of Death!

I still use and love my M5 and 22/2 and 32/1.4 lenses. Zero regrets. I may yet even buy an M6 II.

@Foskito So Jon Snow says an old phone+camera is at least as good as a low end dedicated camera in terms of photography, and your reply is that phones do even more than take photos? I don’t understand how that counters his point… would seem to reinforce it.

These cameras are aimed at people who want to take good photos with a dedicated camera and do not have plans to change their phones in order to do so. So if a certain phone offers better IQ (which not) is irrelevant.

There’s some fuzzy market assumptions here. What we are missing is an out of the box comparison, particularly considering the target audience and the way these images are expected to be consumed.

I agree with Foskito on this one; people who have no interest in dedicated cameras and like to take pictures with their phone is going to keep doing that. Someone looking for a dedicated camera with all that entails, like physical controls and gripability and I dare say better raw images at the very least, isn't going to browse among yesterday's phones.

I agree with John Snow that a comparison between the output of a phone of a similar price and jpegs from this camera, perhaps with the kit lens, would be interesting. Well, I would find it mildly interesting, to see whether dedicated camera smarts have evolved as well; as mentioned I don't think there's a common audience between the two product categories so I don't think many prospective buyers would be.

I hate seeing the low end dedicated camera market lose. But for that, camera manufacturers must adapt smartphone “smarts” to remain relevant.

I have a Pixel 3, thinking these things take comparable photos right out of the box compared to any ILC is laughable.

I've got a Pixel 3 & 5, so somewhat older but best in breed smartphone cameras at the time... First thing to realize is that the only module worth talking about is the main ~26-28mm module on them, the UWA is just middling and while more recent phones can do some impressive stuff with their tele module it still pales in comparison to the reach of even half decent crop teles (or at least the M4/3 ones I've used).

So 24-28mm is the main point of comparison, if you use an ILC to largely shoot any other FL besides that then it's all kinda moot. If you're happy with 24-28 then it's worth looking at, I'd say phones do really really well within a narrow lane and might when overshadow APS-C & M4/3 within that lane... The stacking computational tricks do an impressive job with low light scenes & fairly static subjects, it's not easy to replicate that in post even w/great RAWs.

(continued)

Those same tricks start to fall apart with less static subjects and in better light where the NR isn't needed tho, and the computational DoF tricks still aren't anywhere as impressive IMO. So if you shoot an ILC for UWA, or for shallow DoF and the compression of a tele, or for anything else outside of 24-28mm then there's really no comparison. For 24-28mm low light snaps tho, sure, it can be a close call...

I'd even say a phone and an ILC can complement each other, shoot your short tele or UWA on the latter and grab wide snaps with the former without lens swapping on the ILC, etc. To quote Dora, por qué no los dos?

I have a Pixel 4a and the camera isn't that great. My six year old Rebel delivers way better images. It's absurd to say " a used pixel 3a is far better equipped to get out stunning photos right out of the box".

Phones don't usually have this level of AF which should prove very useful for Wildlife. Most folks love wildlife, Phones, not so much.

With decent lenses this would replace my RX10 IV.

@Kiril Karaatanasov
Guess you didn't read my whole comment :-)
I said people with cheap old phones. Contrary to what you might think, not everybody go buy the latest and greatest in phones every year.

Also contrary to what you might think, there are a lot of people out there that doesn't recognize their phone as the best picture taking device.

This camera is just the right one for them. It is cheap and it get the job done.

Given todays market penetration I suspect smartphones are far more successful than wildlife.

The owner of that cheap old phone doesn’t have to buy the latest, greatest phone every year. They need only use the money that would go towards this ‘vacation” camera to upgrade their “cheap” phone once. Most folks enjoy wildlife without feeling compelled to make portraits of them.

The non-enthusiast market for dedicated cameras is shrinking. The question is will this camera find a place in enthusiasts’ kits?

Besides AF, the venerable Nikon D3400/D3500 is as capable, and cheaper too…

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. “Fast food” photography seems to feed the masses though. Just as point & shoots and instamatics once did.

Ehh, I'm not sure that a few slightly more clever auto modes and the polished touch UI (which Canon & Pana have had for ages) really makes it that much better for the beginner, those things combined with the more seamless AF do make for an appealing package but it's no kind of paradigm shift.

The lenses available for RF, much to enthusiasts' chagrin, do make that package even more appealing IMO... The cheap RF primes are, well, cheap and smaller than some of the wide DSLR alternatives (along w/that variable UWA zoom), and the 100-400 is smaller and lighter than a good majority of FF tele zooms ever made that can reach >300mm.

None of that really changes the equation for the average buyer, specially if they're not interested in shooting very long or very wide or simply aren't aware how much smaller/lighter mirrorless bodies have gotten (very likely). That's the big marketing challenge for Canon & Sony IMO.

(continued)

They don't have to convince *every* smartphone user that there's better alternatives for some use cases, they won't, but there's more people interested in photography than ever thanks to smartphones and there's plenty of potential buyers they could peel off if mirrorless was better marketed.

This type of low-end camera is geared toward the soccer mom/football dad, not the enthusiast. They have young kids and want to snap pictures of them, if they use a phone, they get little ants, even at the 3x that phones can do. So they spend under a grand for this camera and 2-lens bundle, and can now get nice closeups of their kids playing their favorite sport.

Canon M is the most hated by Canon itself. It was made to show Sony that Mirrorless cameras were "bullsh*t" at that time.
So Canon will never focus much on lens for M series.

But it still seems kind of weird for a capitalistic company like Canon to forego the opportunity to sell an additional lens or two to their APS-C customers. And I have no doubt that with just a tiny bit of instruction, many of those customers would easily learn to make good use of say, a relatively-large-aperture (compared to a kit zoom) wide-angle prime or portrait prime, on their APS-C cameras. Now, a cheap full-frame 50mm f/1.8, though not ideal, could serve as a portrait prime on APS-C. But where is the large-aperture general-purpose wide prime (say, 35mm FF-equivalent) for APS-C? Or an even-wider one for vlogging or travel interiors?

They already have a compact 18-150 mm so an 18-135 is not go to appear anytime soon if ever.

Nerdy_Andreas brings up a very important point. How many folks actually even intend to buy beyond the kits lens. An even then, how many actually do. Regardless of how many lens, regardless of quality or price are available.

So this notion that folks buying these entry level Cameras with kit lens are somehow wanting some mass array of lens, I believe that is a False Notion.

I have little doubt, now that Canon has, count them, 3 R mount cropped cameras, they will widen out the range of mirrorless lens. Which should be more than enough for Entry level type cameras.

I have notice a significant number of discontinued Cameras over the last few weeks so the Global Parts issue problems might still be a major issues. Even for bringing out new lens.

This camera would likely kill the Fujifilm X-E3 in AF performance in photo and video, probably the most important feature for a beginner.

PowerShot G7 X Mark III $699.99
4.2x Optical Zoom Lens (24-100mm f/1.8-2.8) with Optical Image Stabilizer.
There you go.

I agree. Entry level buyers rarely buy more lenses. An 18-135 is enough for them. That is why the lenses exists. Its either that or the 18-55 and 55-200 kits that every manufacturer sells.

EF is dead too. As is EF-s. Canon is clearly consolidating into the one mount.

Canon themselves are saying the R50 is the M50 II successor. The message is in the text and all over the videos:

https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/in/article/eng/eos-r50

They're pushing the R50 for vlogging as well, so it seems likely the 11-22 will be ported over to RF-S very soon.

I feel like Canon got duped by Sony and the E-Mount to create the EF-M system.
With the first EF-M camera coming out in 2012 (2 years after the NEX 3 & 5), Canon was likely trying to match Sony's NEX lineup, which until 2013 was only APS-C.
They likely thought Sony oversized the mount a bit for APS-C, but it would be a tight fit for Full Frame (which it is, just look at how much bigger RF and Z are), so they built a slimmed down mount for an APS-C only mirrorless line.
Enter the A7 a year after Canon introduces the Eos M. At this point Canon knew they had a problem, but they waited a few years to see if Sony's Full Frame Mirrorless play would pay off.
It did, and in 2018 RF was born, and the writing was on the wall for the end of EF-M.
Canon milked EF-M for what they could get, but they knew there was no point in continuing the EF-M line, it was best to focus on one mount for mirrorless, just as Sony had done.

Ah Fos, you're always the same, nevermind. :-) Especially for you, the R50 is a absolute Beginner, Entry Level Camera. The X-E4 is not, something, you don't understood. FYI, this is the X-A7, into contrast.

And especially for you, Fujifilm does have the most complete APS-C Lenses LineUp, bar none - into the business. Canon RF-S is still very young, and you won't believe, they'd have the same Lineup someday as EF-S, which was nothing compared to Fuji anyway. Second, besides the XF Line, the Lenses are all made out of metal, and many do have aperture rings, Sony did this the past years also with their GM lineup, and also now G lenses (20-70/F4) but their APS-C lenses are just like Canikon, plasticky, without aperture ring, no comparsion.

This is a silly, stupid Fuji bashing from your side, as many ppl are on DPR. conversation closed.

Have fun, a nice sunday!

You evade the question. I never said this was not a beginner's camera,
Again: $2000 for an X100v or XP4 is not overpriced? That is what people are asking for them USED.

Good night

Fos: you see how much a X100V thanks to ShitTok is no worth! You're comparing apples vs. oranges, and escalated with your LOL comment, i do know exactly how you are...nevermind.

Comparing a Entry level, plasticky DSLM with interchangeable lenses with a fixed Lens premium X100V is somewhat silly. It's the same, comparing the X100V with any entry level Body, see your point? You're doing it into a wrong way, for real.

Because your argument, X-E4 is expensive, is not the same class as an R50, and u know that, and see no land, therefore now you come with a silly X100V comparsion.

The Fujifilm equivalent is the X-A7, as said before, or X-T200, not the X-E4 class. Yes right Mr. Fos, i do compare also the VW Golf with an Ferrari... i see what you did here...as for lenses, the XC 35mm F2 is the same (DPR showed) as the XF 35 F2, with plastic body, w/o aperture ring. It does cost these days less than 150 EUR, that's cheap. I'd always use a X-E vs a R50.

Good night for you, too. Sleep well.

You mean, yet again, an entry-level aps-c camera omits IBIS which is standard on FF & MFT. Foolish marketing and no excuse - cost to add is minimal, and just look at the flange!

"cost to add is minimal..."

Since you have the info, how much exactly would cost the IBIS system?

@foskito - it's $29.37 marginal factory gate cost.

Which they'll make up on all that wonderful lens line up they have in their coherent aps-c strategy.

@Djehuty - I agree. IBIS is for some people that do not know the proper way to take photos.
Peter Lik sells prints for $30,000 taken with cameras that had no IBIS.

good thing is, i can now pick up mint condition EF-M lenses at very low prices. recently bought a Sigma 56/1.4 for only 220 €. next on list is an EF-M 32/1.4. Fully expect to get 5 more years of use out of them on my M6 II. without buying anything from Canon. After that i'll probably move to Sony FF.

Perhaps best to decide what to buy in 5 years time when you know what’s available in 5 years time…

@ goodeyes: Exactly. That's what drive me away from Canon. I wanted a compact APS-C camera but I had the feeling (and still have) that Canon sees it's APS-C lines either as mere stepping stones to FF.

Canon thought that mirrorless was a craze, they made a camera and some lenses, for the low end of the market, they did not think that mirrorless would take over DSLRs. That is why they were late, both with APS-C as with FF mirrorless cameras.
When they found the EF-M mount not good enough for professional cameras they had to start over, creating the RF mount. When the R-0series cameras came out it was clear that they could not have two completely incompatible mounts for ever, so they had to kill the M-mount. It is strange, as Sony showed that it is possible to make a serious FF camera with a small mount!

Possible and optimal are not necessarily the same. Canon makes cameras sized to mange the lenses that are likely to be used on them. Sony makes all cameras tiny,whether it makes sense or not. Yes, I can put my M6 II behind the EF 600 f/5.6 L if it is on a tripod and it captures fine images, but no way hand held. Canon is also clearly building new lenses after they discontinue old ones and that makes perfect business sense as tooling a bunch of new assembly lines in a much shrunken market would not make good business sense.

@David... I don't think that Canon gives great value at a lower price, they makes it very hard for 3rd party lens makers to create AF RF lenses, so they limit the lens choice to Canon lenses only when you want to do AF. That is a huge problem as Canon will not make many RF-S lenses for their APS-C line. Look at how many EF-S lenses there are (24 with a lot of updated lenses)
When you want a good value better look at Fuji or Sony who opened their mount to third party!

@David, No I don't think it is a different problem, you can have a very cheap and very capable camera, but when you have to buy very expensive lenses, then the lower priced bodies aren't that low in price anymore.
And what is more, compared to the other FF entry level cameras Canon did cut a lot of corners. No IBIS (the others have it) Low frame rate, no complete mechanical shutter, short battery life, yes a lot of corners cut indeed!
We have to see if this camera becomes a success or not...

@grensen and DavidNikonD500. What you are both missing (or ignoring) is that historically, Canon has had the lion's share of the APS-c market with Rebels and they know exactly what kind of lenses low-end APS-c owners buy. Best estimates are that around 90% never go beyond the kit lens(es). And with Fujis "great selection", they represent only 5% of the market (and that includes MF). Maybe, just maybe, Canon has looked at the cost/return ratio of making a full line of APS-c lenses for a tiny sliver of the market and decided it doesn't make sense. (continued)

Kandid, I can understand that someone who invested in Canon EF-M mount don't want to buy Canon anymore, they will feel abandoned by Canon. And Nikon did the same with their 1"mirrorless camera owners. But he could go Fuji (APS-C) or Panasonic (FF) too

And Sony did the same with their A mount users…….🤷‍♂️

Yes they did, and that costed Sony quite some supporters too! At least the A-mount users could keep on using their A-mount lenses with an adapter, tell me, how is that with the M-mount?
And lets be honest, Canon is abandoning the EF mount too, or do you think new cameras will come out in the future? But here Canon is offering at least some very good adapters!

Dragonrider, what you did is not fair at all, and you know it!
Lets start with the Nikon part:
First Nikon killed the N1 line because bad sales, people didn't like the idea! Canon is killing a popular mount, because it is to expensive to have 2 incompatible mounts next to each other! The M-mount was selling rather well
Second Nikon doesn't offer a Z-mount camera with a 1" sensor, so it makes no sense to put a n1 lens on an Z mount camera, Canon does offer a RF-mount camera with an APS-C sensor, so it makes sense to put a M-mount lens on it, when it was possible...
Then the FD mount to EF mount. That was a big change, from MF to AF and that was something that many people wanted, proven by Minolta!
The step up from M-mount to RF mount is zero, no important new features in the RF-mount. Even the step up from EF mount to RF is minimal, electronically they are almost identical.
And there is no reason to put an M-mount lens on an EF mount camera!

@gfrensen: To say that RF mount has no advantages over M mount is to say that you have clearly not used a recent R series camera with RF lenes attached. I, too am a little sad to see what is almost certainly the end of the line for M, but I am not going to endlessly whinge about it. Further, my sadness is not related to the lens compatiblity issues, but rather to the apparent compromise in size, but then, the R50 is lighter than the M50 and almost as small, so maybe there is some magic in the air. If you have an M system and love it , then just keep using it. Lenses and bodies will be available both new and used for some time.

@goodeyes: No, moving from and APS-c R body to a FF R body doesn't mean you have to throw your RF-s lenses away. It just means that your FF body will revert to APS-c mode when you attach the RF-s lens (just like it does when you attach an EF-s lens to it).

@goodeyes: You are forgetting the very loud contingent that wanted a 7D II replacement for "reach". For the most part, the R7 satisfies that request quite well. I personally would have preferred a high MP FF body, but the technology is clearly not there yet to to high MP and high frame rate together and high frame rate was a key part of the request for a 7DII replacement. It is worth noting that 7D/7D II owners were the one group of EF-s owners that DID buy lenses and it is almost certain that the same iwll be true for R7 owners. I added an R7 to the collection and it is stunning used with the RF800 f/11.

I would add that using an R5 in crop mode actually does make sense in many situations where you were likely to crop anyway. The EVF increases magnification so the crop frame fills the viewer and that can be very useful.

@goodeyes. True: no draw, but by now we all know who the n00b is 🤣 . And BTW, Canon will laugh all the way to the bank.

Yes yes - that’s the way you win an argument - keep repeating the ‘opinion as fact’ until all others find something better to do - it’s a winner….😂🤣😂

@goodeyes: If what you say is true, then why is it that every major reviewer on the planet has said for the last two years that Canon should kill M and move APS-c to R? Every significant decision made by a major company will disadvantage someone, no matter how correct it is in the aggregate. The fact that you were on the short end of this stick doesn't mean that a majority (or even a significant number) of others share your grief.

Goodeyes has been a little bit busted I’m afraid…..😯

@gfrensen: With EF-s, Canon made an APS-c mount that was one-way incompatible and actually far more likely to cause issues than the R vs M controversy. EF-s lenses don't fit on FF EF cameras, but they look like they will and it is quite possble to destroy the mirror in a FF camera by trying to attach an EF-s lens. Somehow, the public managed to work around that issue for the last 20 years without any significant damage to Canon's reputation, so I think the same public will be able to handle the M vs R challenge. 😊