I Am Sensing A Lot Of Anger Over Canon's New Mirrorless

MyM3 said:

nnowak said:

Sibir Lupus said:

T3 said:

Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry were all tops in their respective markets too.

Let's also not forget that Canon killed off their FD system when they introduced the EF system. They even released new FD bodies after the EF system was released. But the system still eventually went away. More recently, look at Nikon killing off their Nikon 1 system. It just goes to show that companies will make any changes that they feel are necessary. EOS M won't be immune to that.

Click to expand...

EF was designed to replace FD which was pretty much a given. And for the Nikon 1 system, it was a flop overall. The EOS M was the highest selling mirrorless system in the second quarter of 2018 in Japan. And that's primarily due to entry level models like the M100 and M50. Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

It would look and perform the same as the M50, except the mount diameter would be slightly larger.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that they will make cheap Aps-c R cameras. They want to sell expensive FF cameras. But if they do, it will be heavier and at least 7mm higher and 2mm deeper. And heavier and bigger lenses (in diameter).

Click to expand...

The RF mount is the same size as the EF mount, except that it has a 20mm flange distance rather than 44mm. So we can apply this shorter flange distance to a camera such as the SL1 and see how it would compare to the M50:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#448,776





The current SL1 is only 2mm taller than an M50 and it's only 20g heavier. Now just imagine an EOS R version of the SL1 with a 20mm flange distance (compared to 18mm for the M50). An EOS R version of the SL1 would basically be the same size and weight as an M50. And if Canon opted not to make the EOS R SL1 body look like a melted lump, it could be made to look virtually identical to the M50.

Brian Slater said:

And another thing. Canon has another incentive to keep the EOS M system alive: Nikon abandoned the Nikon 1 system, and Canon made better choices in designing a more useful and popular system.

Click to expand...

Canon only has incentive to keep EOS M alive until APS-C EOS R arrives.

Two completely different constructions. Maybe the EVF needs more room. Anyway if they can make a R50 Xmm high, then they can make a (new) M50 Xmm minus 7mm high. The same with depth (minus 2mm). And the lenses will be BIGGER, heavier and more expensive.

fino_nyc said:

Lost99999 said:

The M system and the native M lenses are all about portability, compact design, easy to use and good quality at reasonable cost. The quality of the M lenses fits well with the M bodies - and all is optimized for APS. ( its not pro level, but for sure a step up from point and shoot cameras)

It’s a very nice ecosystem serving many many consumers. I bet Canon sells 10-100x the amount of M cameras vs FF DSLR’s. Its like the Rebel mirrorless. Its a true winner and Canon will keep it for many years to come. Why ? Because it makes revenue, profit and is part of the whole Canon line up.

M lenses ( and EF-S lenses) were never made for full frame - if you invest into those you knew they would not fit on the top end range of cameras. For all but 2-3 exceptions, the quality of those lenses would also not be in balance with a FF body (or top APS). ( EOS 1d, 5d, 6d, 7d, 80d ) .. why would you spend 2000 $ on a FF body ( 2500 for the R ) and add a lens that makes you full frame into an APS ?

If you were into ‘M’ because you were using it as a step into FF mirrorless .. you should have invested in EF glass. But most people into M were into M because of the reasons stated in my opening sentence.

So why now all the complaining ? Everybody ready to upgrade from point and shoot to M .. ditches the point and shooter. Everybody interested to move into full frame .. should put your EFs and, M body and M lenses on ebay ( they will still have value ) ... and migrate to the new system - the next step up the quality pyramid. Its not a big deal and it will not be at a big $$ loss.

Click to expand...

Source: https://www.canonnews.com/cipa-data-for-july-2018-shipments-slip

Click to expand...

Thanks for looking up that chart: so :

20-25% of the market is MILC .. which must be M series.

22-28% is DSLR .. Rebel, 80/7D and the full frames. IF 1 out of 10-20 DSLR’s is a FF.. my statement is correct. Anyone any charts on the breakdown of the DSLR segment ?

impressive to see the M is strwdily growing!

Carol T said:

.... now I am really, really glad I never got into the M system. It sucks for people who did because they thought Canon was going to make something more than a consumer system

Click to expand...

That is a very strange logic: as i tried to explain, if you wanted to go into FF and wanted to grow into it via the M system ; you should buy EF lenses on your M body. These lenses still work on R .. no problemo. If your goal was / is FF .. why would you ever buy crop lenses ?

And for those that bought M for M reasons, very likely most of them use 1 or 2 lenses on the camera and will buy a new set / system in 5-10 years.

007peter said:

I totally get the anger. I would have been okay:

• (IF) canon say that it didn't want APS-C lens to work on a Fullframe camera.
• (However) EOS-R is fully compatible with an APS-C (EF-S) lens

Click to expand...

A 12MP crop on a 30MP sensor is hardly an acceptable solution for using EF-S lenses. Allowing EF-S lenses on the EOS R was more of a technical possibility more then a solution as the EF-S lenses can mount at the proper flange distance with an RF to EF adapter and not have a mirror hit the back of the EF-S lenses. That and because Sony also offers this on their FF cameras.

007peter said:

• (This means) EF-M was being Eliminated on Purpose for No Good Reason.

Click to expand...

How does this even add up to your conclusion? A 12MP crop with an EF-S lens on the EOS-R gives you HALF the MP you'd get with any EF-S lens mounted on any recent EOS M camera (M100, M6, M50, M5) with an EF-M to EF adapter. EF-S lenses on the EOS R is a stopgap measure at best, not a solution to replace the EOS M series.

007peter said:

Canon could have easily gone 18mm instead of 20mm to keep EF-M lens compatibility

Click to expand...

How would that have helped? Looking at the RF lens diameter in the back, Canon would have actually needed to make the flange distance longer for RF lenses so that a hollow RF to EF-M adapter (no glass) would work. An 18mm RF flange distance would mean the lens would have to butt up right on an EF-M camera mount, in which there is no way it could properly lock in or even have the diameter clearance around the to of the EF-M mount to fit in from of an EOS M body

Or are you referring to using EF-M lenses on the EOS R? Even then the RF flange distance would have to be longer so that an adapter with a step-down diameter would allow for the smaller EF-M mount. But at that point the EF-M lens would be to far form the sensor to work. The only real way this would have ever worked is if the EOS R used the EF-M mount, but that would severely crippled the types of fast lenses Canon could offer.

007peter said:

But decide NOT TO on purpose. This is a Total ****-MOVE on Canon's part, no IF-n-Butt about it. Making it worse is that many EOS-M owner really believe in Canon and stuck it out.

Click to expand...

See above. Also, I'll still sticking it out as Canon is still supporting the system at least into the near future (no ACTUAL proof so far that they are not) and that for users like me are happy with the system for what it is.

007peter said:

As a hated FaithLESS system switcher who escape to M43, I feel extremely LUCKY, and reward for my WISE decision to leave.

Click to expand...

So you switched to a system with a smaller, more limited sensor size and feel "lucky" about this?? Yeah, Micro 4/3s have a great lens selection. But a great lens alone doesn't make a great camera system.

007peter said:

Where as Canon EOS-M loyalist who stuck with Canon all these years are being PUNISH for their Loyalty. So yes, I do understand the anger.

Click to expand...

I don't feel punished, at least not yet. I've been happy with my venture into the EOS M system (started with the original M while it was on clearance in 2013). There is still light in the EOS M's future. But how long that light will be there is anyone's GUESS right now .

Here is the reality - if people are that nervous about the M system than dont buy any more M lenses. Its not like there is a ton of them anyway. Than you are only out the $ for the body and the lenses IF they discontinue them. IMO thats a big IF. I dont think they will discontinue them as they sell extremely well in Asia.

As I said before Canon is in the business to make money. As long as the M makes money they will continue to make it.

The R mount will eventually replace both EF/EFS but its a long, long way off. Frankly if you look at it, Canon continues to release EF/EFS lenses so this is not happening tomorrow.

MyM3 said:

Two completely different constructions. Maybe the EVF needs more room. Anyway if they can make a R50 Xmm high, Than they can make a (new) M50 Xmm minus 7mm high. The same with depth (minus 2mm). And the lenses will be BIGGER.

Click to expand...

EVF needs less room. Pentaprisms need to be much taller than the height of their actual viewing surface. EVFs only need to be as tall as their viewing screen and they don't take up much space at all. Here's EVF:



And here's pentaprism:









The lenses don't have to be larger either. They can use the step-down barrel design that Fuji uses:

Lost99999 said:

Carol T said:

.... now I am really, really glad I never got into the M system. It sucks for people who did because they thought Canon was going to make something more than a consumer system

Click to expand...

That is a very strange logic: as i tried to explain, if you wanted to go into FF and wanted to grow into it via the M system ; you should buy EF lenses on your M body. These lenses still work on R .. no problemo. If your goal was / is FF .. why would you ever buy crop lenses ?

And for those that bought M for M reasons, very likely most of them use 1 or 2 lenses on the camera and will buy a new set / system in 5-10 years.

Click to expand...

I don't think you get my point.

I was not saying I am glad because my system would not be compatible with the R system, I am glad because I wanted an enthusiast APS-C system, and Canon never made the M system into that, which I and a lot of other people were hoping for. The current developments make it pretty clear Canon never will make it more than a small, light, relatively (for Canon, lol) inexpensive carryabout system for people who are never going to be serious photographers. So, I am glad I went ahead and got into something else instead of getting into M and hoping it would turn into something I wanted.

You can't shoot with what they don't make.

Lost99999 said:

fino_nyc said:

Lost99999 said:

The M system and the native M lenses are all about portability, compact design, easy to use and good quality at reasonable cost. The quality of the M lenses fits well with the M bodies - and all is optimized for APS. ( its not pro level, but for sure a step up from point and shoot cameras)

It’s a very nice ecosystem serving many many consumers. I bet Canon sells 10-100x the amount of M cameras vs FF DSLR’s. Its like the Rebel mirrorless. Its a true winner and Canon will keep it for many years to come. Why ? Because it makes revenue, profit and is part of the whole Canon line up.

M lenses ( and EF-S lenses) were never made for full frame - if you invest into those you knew they would not fit on the top end range of cameras. For all but 2-3 exceptions, the quality of those lenses would also not be in balance with a FF body (or top APS). ( EOS 1d, 5d, 6d, 7d, 80d ) .. why would you spend 2000 $ on a FF body ( 2500 for the R ) and add a lens that makes you full frame into an APS ?

If you were into ‘M’ because you were using it as a step into FF mirrorless .. you should have invested in EF glass. But most people into M were into M because of the reasons stated in my opening sentence.

So why now all the complaining ? Everybody ready to upgrade from point and shoot to M .. ditches the point and shooter. Everybody interested to move into full frame .. should put your EFs and, M body and M lenses on ebay ( they will still have value ) ... and migrate to the new system - the next step up the quality pyramid. Its not a big deal and it will not be at a big $$ loss.

Click to expand...

Source: https://www.canonnews.com/cipa-data-for-july-2018-shipments-slip

Click to expand...

Thanks for looking up that chart: so :

20-25% of the market is MILC .. which must be M series.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a Canon specific chart, but rather general sales numbers

Lost99999 said:

22-28% is DSLR .. Rebel, 80/7D and the full frames. IF 1 out of 10-20 DSLR’s is a FF.. my statement is correct. Anyone any charts on the breakdown of the DSLR segment ?

impressive to see the M is strwdily growing!

Click to expand...

My point stands. If you put a the same EVF on top of both a RF mount and a EF-M mount, the M-camera can always be made 7mm lower and 2mm less deep. And the most important is that the lenses will be BIGGER in diameter and heavier.

T3 said:

T3 said:

Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

You've never heard of Canon Rebels?

Click to expand...

Of course I have. But at the point of shaving down the specs of an EOS R to a an entry level model, you'd end up with something like an M50 with an RF mount in place of the EF-M mount. Would that really make sense?

T3 said:

T3 said:

I'm not saying the EOS M system is immune to being ended at any point. All I'm saying is that the future is uncertain right now and that no one should be planning the EOS M's funeral anytime soon.

Click to expand...

People have short memories. This is the FD system that Canon killed off:



Canon FD had a lot more users and a lot more lenses than EOS M does! The FD system went from 1971 to 1992. Compare that to the massive EOS M system that has far less usership!

Click to expand...

Yes, the FD system did have a lot of lenses but that was due to it being Canon's primary lens system up until the EF mount. The fact is the FD lens system was out of date by the time the EF mount was launched so of course it was axed. That and Canon didn't need two primary lens systems for film at the time. There is nothing "out of date" about the EF-M lenses as they use the same 8 pin connection as EF. And recent EF lenses received newer Nano USM focusing systems, so technically so can future EF-M lenses. That and EF-M lenses are much more suited for APS-C sensors as they don't need extra bulk to be compatible with a FF mount (aka, EF-S)

And let's not forget that Canon touts itself as being a lens company first and foremost. So no doubt they have the resources to keep both the RF and EF-M lenses going into the future. Heck, they had the resources to keep EF, EF-S and EF-M lenses going. And seeing as EF-S lenses may become irrelevant (see my posts about limited crop factor capability on EOS R), then Canon can start devoting more to the EF-M lenses and system as a whole.

T3 said:

Many people would argue that EOS R is designed to eventually replace EOS M for all levels of bodies except for the ultra-compact EOS M100.

Click to expand...

They can argue, yes. But no one has proof of this yet. So far no one is really right or wrong on this case. We just have to wait and see what Canon does with the EOS M system, and it's as simple as that .

Sibir Lupus said:

T3 said:

Sibir Lupus said:

Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

You've never heard of Canon Rebels?

Click to expand...

Of course I have. But at the point of shaving down the specs of an EOS R to a an entry level model, you'd end up with something like an M50 with an RF mount in place of the EF-M mount. Would that really make sense?

Click to expand...

Yes it would. It would allow Canon to have a unifying lens mount for mirrorless.

MyM3 said:

My point stands. If you put a the same EVF on top of both a RF mount and a EF-M mount, the M-camera can always be made 7mm lower and 2mm less deep. And the most important is that the lenses will be BIGGER in diameter and heavier.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. EVF can sit behind the RF mount, and even to the side! With EVF, you can put it anywhere you want. It does not have to sit above the RF mount. As for depth, the grip is deeper. And 2mm is not that much anyways.

T3 said:

MyM3 said:

My point stands. If you put a the same EVF on top of both a RF mount and a EF-M mount, the M-camera can always be made 7mm lower and 2mm less deep. And the most important is that the lenses will be BIGGER in diameter and heavier.

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. EVF can sit behind the RF mount, and even to the side! With EVF, you can put it anywhere you want.

Click to expand...

Seem like Canon can only make one type of EVF. A hump on the top. And I think we were talking about the M50. Anyway, the EVF can go the same places on a new M and still be 7mm lower.

T3 said:

It does not have to sit above the RF mount. As for depth, the grip is deeper.

Click to expand...

Not with a lens on.

T3 said:

And 2mm is not that much anyways.

Click to expand...

nnowak said:

Sibir Lupus said:

T3 said:

Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry were all tops in their respective markets too.

Let's also not forget that Canon killed off their FD system when they introduced the EF system. They even released new FD bodies after the EF system was released. But the system still eventually went away. More recently, look at Nikon killing off their Nikon 1 system. It just goes to show that companies will make any changes that they feel are necessary. EOS M won't be immune to that.

Click to expand...

EF was designed to replace FD which was pretty much a given. And for the Nikon 1 system, it was a flop overall. The EOS M was the highest selling mirrorless system in the second quarter of 2018 in Japan. And that's primarily due to entry level models like the M100 and M50. Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

It would look and perform the same as the M50, except the mount diameter would be slightly larger.

Click to expand...

I think you will need something larger than M50:



Not much grip! (He,he. )

MyM3 said:

nnowak said:

Sibir Lupus said:

T3 said:

Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry were all tops in their respective markets too.

Let's also not forget that Canon killed off their FD system when they introduced the EF system. They even released new FD bodies after the EF system was released. But the system still eventually went away. More recently, look at Nikon killing off their Nikon 1 system. It just goes to show that companies will make any changes that they feel are necessary. EOS M won't be immune to that.

Click to expand...

EF was designed to replace FD which was pretty much a given. And for the Nikon 1 system, it was a flop overall. The EOS M was the highest selling mirrorless system in the second quarter of 2018 in Japan. And that's primarily due to entry level models like the M100 and M50. Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

It would look and perform the same as the M50, except the mount diameter would be slightly larger.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that they will make cheap Aps-c R cameras. They want to sell expensive FF cameras.

Click to expand...

How does a $600 crop body reduce sales of a $2000 full frame body? If anything, having a crop body that takes the same lenses and the full frame body is a bid advantage. The overall size and weight differences between EF-M and RF would be completely negligible. Your entire kit probably wouldn't even gain 100 grams.

M4Mobility said:

But if they do, it will be heavier and at least 7mm higher and 2mm deeper. And heavier and bigger lenses (in diameter).

Click to expand...

The lenses only need to be bigger at the mount. The rest of the lens could still be 61mm, or even smaller.

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

And lets not forget that the EOS R doesn't really have any affordable lenses right now to even go with an more entry level type model.

Click to expand...

The new RF 35mm f1.8 STM IS Macro is $20 more expensive than the new EF-M 32mm f1.4 STM. Size and weight are also very close. One lens is a bit brighter, but the other has IS and macro capabilities.

Click to expand...

Too heavy and too wide. And many want f1.4 instead of IS.

Click to expand...

Only 70 grams heavier, 13mm wider, and 10mm longer. Compared to the 35mm f2 IS USM plus adapter that many use with the M system, this new RF lens is 155 grams lighter, 4mm skinnier, and 26mm shorter. Plus, it is 1/3 of a stop faster with better IS. I am sure there are many Rebel shooters right now that would love to have access to this new lens.

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

M4Mobility said:

I'm not saying the EOS M system is immune to being ended at any point. All I'm saying is that the future is uncertain right now and that no one should be planning the EOS M's funeral anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MyM3 said:

My point stands. If you put a the same EVF on top of both a RF mount and a EF-M mount, the M-camera can always be made 7mm lower and 2mm less deep. And the most important is that the lenses will be BIGGER in diameter and heavier.

Click to expand...

Are you will to give up compatibility with all of the upcoming full frame lenses to save 7mm of height and 20 grams?

MyM3 said:

My point stands. If you put a the same EVF on top of both a RF mount and a EF-M mount, the M-camera can always be made 7mm lower and 2mm less deep. And the most important is that the lenses will be BIGGER in diameter and heavier.

Click to expand...

No, it can't. Look at the back of the M50. The EVF and LCD are already touching. You can't make the M50 shorter without compromising ergonomics. Now, look at the front of the M50. The gap between the EVF hump and the mount is big enough to absorb the RF mount.

Regardless, the sizes and weights you are quibbling over are inconsequential. An extra battery will be bigger and heavier.

MyM3 said:

nnowak said:

Sibir Lupus said:

T3 said:

Kodak, Nokia, Blackberry were all tops in their respective markets too.

Let's also not forget that Canon killed off their FD system when they introduced the EF system. They even released new FD bodies after the EF system was released. But the system still eventually went away. More recently, look at Nikon killing off their Nikon 1 system. It just goes to show that companies will make any changes that they feel are necessary. EOS M won't be immune to that.

Click to expand...

EF was designed to replace FD which was pretty much a given. And for the Nikon 1 system, it was a flop overall. The EOS M was the highest selling mirrorless system in the second quarter of 2018 in Japan. And that's primarily due to entry level models like the M100 and M50. Canon would be insane to kill off this kind of success seeing as the EOS R system won't be "entry level" for quite a while. And even then, what would a $600 crop sensor EOS R even look like or be able to offer with so many cut corners to reduce price?

Click to expand...

It would look and perform the same as the M50, except the mount diameter would be slightly larger.

Click to expand...

I think you will need something larger than M50:



Not much grip! (He,he. )

Click to expand...

Shift the mount and EVF 10mm to the left. Done. Problem solved.