EOS R white paper giving clues about EF-M system? + musings

fstopx2 said:

The M isnt going to die anytime soon as long as it makes money. Think like a business - would you discontinue a product that makes you money? NOPE. The development cost for the M mount is done. Their only cost going forward is new bodies and new lenses.

Wiil it die at some point to push people to the R? Who knows.

It has a target market like anything else. The target market is people who want a better camera that takes good pictures but is small and light.

Click to expand...

Which has been the target market for EF-S as long as there have been EF-S cameras. EF-S lenses (except for the 18-55mm f/2.8 IS) are always small, light, and push the SOTA for as good quality that can be achieved with an inexpensive lens that is smaller and lighter than their FF brethren. EF-M is the same design rationale.

fstopx2 said:

But that being said I dont ever see the M having a huge catalog of lenses. Canon may release a few more but its never going to be an EF catalog of lenses. But frankly who cares as long as you have what you need. And you can use EF/EF-S lenses if you desire.

Click to expand...

Yes. I am their target market. EF-M lenses are good (once you get past the good copy/bad copy part. And slowness.) I have a good copy of the 15-45mm and it is as good as I need. I recoil with horror at FF 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. Small, light, and decent quality fits my needs. (24 megapixels is good for up to 16x20 right out of the camera. And is almost good enough for 8K right out of the camera. This fits my use case.)
In any event, there is no good reason for any of us to be upset right now. M or not M will probably take years to play out. Right now I am happy with EF-M, just as it is. The people with different priorities should be happy with what Canon is promising with the R mount.

Wayne

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

The reason now for using an APS-C sensor is "because it is smaller than 35mm". This allows somewhat smaller bodies, but more importantly it allows smaller lenses. The overall system is smaller and lighter than would be possible even with a mirrorless 35mm system. This is the reason for the success of the Fuji X-Tn series, for example.

Seen in this light Canon is doing the obvious logical thing : they're making a product line for people who want to use 35mm lenses (the R) and a separate product line for people who want good image quality in a small/light package (the M). It therefore makes no sense to have M lenses on an R body, and the R is in no way an "upgrade path" for M owners. It's a different thing, just like 35mm film and medium format were different.

I believe that the option to mount EF-S lenses on the R is all about the 4k video crop that the current generation imposes (if you can't use EF-S lenses then wide angle video becomes impossible/very expensive). In the future I would expect uncropped 4k video to be achieved and ultimately it is the EF-S lenses and bodies that are "doomed", not the M.

fstopx2 said:

I would put money on the R at some point getting an APS-C size sensor. Canon is not going to walk away from all that APS-C non-Rebel money. No way, no how.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you wrote except this. The driver to put an APS-C sensor instead of a FF one in a body was all about cost, FF sensors originally had terrible yields and were thus multiples more expensive to make. That's no-longer the case; the process is refined, the yields are up, the sensor is no longer the same percentage of the cost of manufacture as it was before. I think technology has reached a point where, if Canon wishes to release a cheaper RF body camera, cutting the sensor size would be the third or fourth option.

I never expect to see an APS-C R mount camera.

dboreham said:

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

Click to expand...

Proper ergonomics dictacte body dimensions far more than sensor size. Canon could put a full frame sensor in an M2, but very few people want to spend $3000 on a camera that is really only comfortable with small pancake primes.

Member said:

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all of the wildlife and sports photographers that specifically choose a crop body to pair with their big white lenses. By your same logic, medium format should soon supercede full frame.

nnowak said:

dboreham said:

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

Click to expand...

Proper ergonomics dictacte body dimensions far more than sensor size. Canon could put a full frame sensor in an M2, but very few people want to spend $3000 on a camera that is really only comfortable with small pancake primes.

Click to expand...

Well, EOS R is already overpriced in light of competition.

Should be $1900.

Smaller form with less controls without EVF and polycarbonate body could go like $1400.

I would pay that kind of money for small FF sensor Canon body.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all of the wildlife and sports photographers that specifically choose a crop body to pair with their big white lenses. By your same logic, medium format should soon supercede full frame.

Click to expand...

Seems we´re not getting adequate resolution bump for APS-C. We´re heading for 50Mpx FF sensors. What advantage does the crop give us at this point? I would guess not much. Maybe FPS, and that´s about it.

crashpc said:

nnowak said:

dboreham said:

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

Click to expand...

Proper ergonomics dictacte body dimensions far more than sensor size. Canon could put a full frame sensor in an M2, but very few people want to spend $3000 on a camera that is really only comfortable with small pancake primes.

Click to expand...

Well, EOS R is already overpriced in light of competition.

Click to expand...

Definitely

crashpc said:

Should be $1900.

Smaller form with less controls without EVF and polycarbonate body could go like $1400.

I would pay that kind of money for small FF sensor Canon body.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, you have been asking for a full frame M2 for years.

crashpc said:

crashpc said:

crashpc said:

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all of the wildlife and sports photographers that specifically choose a crop body to pair with their big white lenses. By your same logic, medium format should soon supercede full frame.

Click to expand...

Seems we´re not getting adequate resolution bump for APS-C. We´re heading for 50Mpx FF sensors. What advantage does the crop give us at this point? I would guess not much. Maybe FPS, and that´s about it.

Click to expand...

Even at 50mp, that is 19.5mp with a 1.6X crop. According to the rumors, Canon has a 32mp crop sensor coming in the next 12 months.

nnowak said:

dboreham said:

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

Click to expand...

Proper ergonomics dictacte body dimensions far more than sensor size. Canon could put a full frame sensor in an M2, but very few people want to spend $3000 on a camera that is really only comfortable with small pancake primes.

Click to expand...

As I said, the important factor driven by sensor size is lens size, not body size.

nnowak said:

nnowak said:

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all of the wildlife and sports photographers that specifically choose a crop body to pair with their big white lenses. By your same logic, medium format should soon supercede full frame.

Click to expand...

That's a temporary situation. Once FF sensors with identical pixel pitch to crop sensors become cheap, then no need to do this.

Yes. I was hoping in Canon going small and FF.

We'll see about that 32Mpx sensor.

Those pixels of the FF are larger and better, and would easily make up for like good 22Mpx image in many situstions. Then the difference gets really small. Tried that even with 24Mpx FF. Not that it wouldn't give me less resolution, it did. But it wasn't as bad, and partially compensated with image quality. With 50Mpx and sufficient FPS, i would more likely go FF. And you get this wider view of the scene, so you don't have to zoom ount to find your object...

dboreham said:

nnowak said:

dboreham said:

Something I haven't seen in these discussions:

The fact that we ever had APS-C size sensors in DSLRs is "the problem" here. That's the weird odd thing. It was done because full frame sensors were unbelievably expensive (and just plain impossible) to make in the beginning.

Because of this history of APS-C being used in conjunction with the existing 35mm film mount, we've become conditioned to expect APS-C in the "wrong size" body to continue to be a thing.

Click to expand...

Proper ergonomics dictacte body dimensions far more than sensor size. Canon could put a full frame sensor in an M2, but very few people want to spend $3000 on a camera that is really only comfortable with small pancake primes.

Click to expand...

As I said, the important factor driven by sensor size is lens size, not body size.

Member said:

Member said:

But that makes no sense once full frame sensors are reasonably cheap to make. I suspect that we're at or close to that point now.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all of the wildlife and sports photographers that specifically choose a crop body to pair with their big white lenses. By your same logic, medium format should soon supercede full frame.

Click to expand...

That's a temporary situation. Once FF sensors with identical pixel pitch to crop sensors become cheap, then no need to do this.

Click to expand...

Cheap, high megapixel full frame is a long way off and three things are working against it.

1. Even if full frame sensors cost the same as crop sensors, consumers are accustomed to paying a $1000-2000 premium for full frame cameras. Manufacturers are not about to give up that profit margin readily.

2. As camera sales decline, economies of scale will also decline and lower volume full frame sensors will be hit harder.

3. Computational photography may kill much of the demand for larger sensors. Picture the Google pixel smartphone magic paired with a larger 1" sensor. Full frame suddenly becomes unnecessary for many people.

nnowak said:

3. Computational photography may kill much of the demand for larger sensors. Picture the Google pixel smartphone magic paired with a larger 1" sensor. Full frame suddenly becomes unnecessary for many people.

Click to expand...

This! I started a thread six months ago entitled

How a 1" sensor can beat FF (with computational photography)

with a chart (scroll down a bit in the OP) showing the effective sensor areas of various common sensor sizes would perform if they used Pixel 2 technology. I said

... a camera with a 1" sensor using Pixel 2 technology would behave like it had an area of 1,044mm2, which is larger than the area of a conventional FF sensor (864mm2).

I was really hoping that Nikon's big mirrorless announcement would be a relaunch of the 1" Nikon 1 ILC only with Pixel 2 (and iPhone X) level of computational photography. If they had, I would have sold all the Canon equipment I own and jumped in with both feet.

But nooooooo. We can't have nice things. We only get same old, same old, but slightly different. (Making a mirrorless camera with existing technology is not really any kind of advance. FF cameras are hardly New Technology.)

Instead I reluctantly got a refurb Canon G7X II with a 1" sensor solely to add optical zoom. Not for wide, because the Pixel 2 is better than the G7X II wide (because of the Pixel 2's well documented ability to perform like it has a m4/3 sensor.)

Glumly slogging on.

Wayne

All fine, but these smaller sensor cameras will work with native, smaller lenses. Not APS-C wedged into a 35mm body/mount.

dboreham wrote:

Member said:

All fine, but these smaller sensor cameras will work with native, smaller lenses. Not APS-C wedged into a 35mm body/mount.

Click to expand...

This is the entire point! 1" sensor and lenses designed for 1" sensors that have slightly better image quality than FF does now. Actually better, when emulated shallow DOF is taken into account. (Which already exists in the Pixel 2 and iPhone X.) Assuming

Picture the Google pixel smartphone magic paired with a larger 1" sensor. Full frame suddenly becomes unnecessary for many people.

APS-C and FF bodies and lenses die away quickly. Just like film did when digital came of age.

Wayne

007peter said:

I agree that EOS-M = dead system. Any money you put in is truly a sunk cost from now on. But I disagree on APS-C (R) not coming. Infact, I'm rather confident that its coming for 3 reasons:

1. Why make APS-C only EF-S lens compatible with RF mount if Canon has no intention of making an APS-C (R) camera in the near future. The fact the Canon gone out of its way to include EF-S lens compatibility into a FF EOS-(R) when it doesn't need to = is a strong signal that there will be an APS-(R) camera in the near future

2. Cost Saving going Mirrorless. DSLR Glass Assembly require too much manual labor and increase the production cost. Shifting APS-C Canon Rebel → Mirrorless is an obvious cost saving, allowing canon to break the current $385 price barrier for Canon 4000d.

3. Cost Saving in Consolidation.

• Eliminating APS-C (EOS-M)
• Eliminating APS-C (EF-S) mount
• Shift everything toward a single future RF-Mount
• While keeping current EF Mount for DSLR

is a Solid concise plan. Canon has no interest in keeping EOS-M alive, and when Canon start making APS-C (R), canon can efficiently remove the EF-S mount as well. Concentrating on all lens on RF mount save cost and increase variety. The only mount Canon is forced to keep the current EF mount. There is simply too many camera and lens in EF mount for canon to cancel, so canon will keep EF as a legacy mounts but all future development is toward a single RF-mount.

Click to expand...

Yep, this nails it. Thom Hogan agrees with you. EF stays not just because of still cameras, though, but also videocameras. RF is obviously here to stay--they want it to last at least 30 years per their own words. EF-S was meant to budget-conscious shooters but that's going to be taken over by RF-S. And EF-M was meant for budget-conscious mirrorless as a stopgap until RF was developed. There's no reason to keep EF-M around after RF-S launches.

Canon will likely keep EF-M going for a while longer. There's no sense in spooking the market by announcing EF-M's death now when there isn't even an RF-S replacement for EF-M yet. It's better financially for the company to slowly clear inventory and parts for EF-M and THEN discontinue EF-M, like how Nikon handled the death of CX mount. It doesn't matter what noises Canon makes about how they support EF-M now and the shiny new 35mm; their actions will speak louder than their words. Nikon launched pricey stuff like the 70-300 CX and pointed to it as if that meant CX was here to stay. It didn't. Sony is doing the same slow-death dance with A-mount which is on life support. Oly did the same slow-death dance with non-micro Four Thirds where for years they claimed to still be developing for 43 when in fact they were just clearing inventory and eventually officially abandoned 43. Samsung did the same thing where they refused to acknowledge the death of NX and kept tight-lipped until the bitter end.

somerandomphotog said:

007peter said:

I agree that EOS-M = dead system. Any money you put in is truly a sunk cost from now on. But I disagree on APS-C (R) not coming. Infact, I'm rather confident that its coming for 3 reasons:

1. Why make APS-C only EF-S lens compatible with RF mount if Canon has no intention of making an APS-C (R) camera in the near future. The fact the Canon gone out of its way to include EF-S lens compatibility into a FF EOS-(R) when it doesn't need to = is a strong signal that there will be an APS-(R) camera in the near future

2. Cost Saving going Mirrorless. DSLR Glass Assembly require too much manual labor and increase the production cost. Shifting APS-C Canon Rebel → Mirrorless is an obvious cost saving, allowing canon to break the current $385 price barrier for Canon 4000d.

3. Cost Saving in Consolidation.

• Eliminating APS-C (EOS-M)
• Eliminating APS-C (EF-S) mount
• Shift everything toward a single future RF-Mount
• While keeping current EF Mount for DSLR

is a Solid concise plan. Canon has no interest in keeping EOS-M alive, and when Canon start making APS-C (R), canon can efficiently remove the EF-S mount as well. Concentrating on all lens on RF mount save cost and increase variety. The only mount Canon is forced to keep the current EF mount. There is simply too many camera and lens in EF mount for canon to cancel, so canon will keep EF as a legacy mounts but all future development is toward a single RF-mount.

Click to expand...

Yep, this nails it. Thom Hogan agrees with you. EF stays not just because of still cameras, though, but also videocameras. RF is obviously here to stay--they want it to last at least 30 years per their own words. EF-S was meant to budget-conscious shooters but that's going to be taken over by RF-S. And EF-M was meant for budget-conscious mirrorless as a stopgap until RF was developed. There's no reason to keep EF-M around after RF-S launches.

Canon will likely keep EF-M going for a while longer. There's no sense in spooking the market by announcing EF-M's death now when there isn't even an RF-S replacement for EF-M yet. It's better financially for the company to slowly clear inventory and parts for EF-M and THEN discontinue EF-M, like how Nikon handled the death of CX mount. It doesn't matter what noises Canon makes about how they support EF-M now and the shiny new 35mm; their actions will speak louder than their words. Nikon launched pricey stuff like the 70-300 CX and pointed to it as if that meant CX was here to stay. It didn't. Sony is doing the same slow-death dance with A-mount which is on life support. Oly did the same slow-death dance with non-micro Four Thirds where for years they claimed to still be developing for 43 when in fact they were just clearing inventory and eventually officially abandoned 43. Samsung did the same thing where they refused to acknowledge the death of NX and kept tight-lipped until the bitter end.

Click to expand...

Exactly - manufacture never admit DEFEAT. They just push the boundaries of Not Lying:

Samsung doesn't need to admit NX is dead. It simply REMOVED all traces of NX system and pretend it never made one. No lies

Olympus promised that Forth-Third is being develop along side M43 in 2008. Which is technically correct, but never Develop any other Forth Third camera. String Along its User for a whopping 9 years of denial, before finally acknowledge death of Forth Third in Feburary 2017.

Nikon (before Z6/Z7 release) claim it never never abandon 1" CX, it was just on "PAUSE" while pursuing other failed electronics like Nikon Key Mission action camera and DL point/shoot that never materialized. The problem is Nikon string along CX users for 6~7 years without updates. Those CX believer would have been better off switching to other system than wasting time.

This is the fate awaiting EOS-M. We're probably get to see a M5 II / M6 II, but after that, probably little to no more lens or camera body, then remove any mentioning of EOS-M from Canon White Paper (as OP said) and website pretending EOS-M never existed much like Samsung did with NX.

Many Canon Youtuber are making excuse for EOS-R Overprice & Underperformance as Canon's 1st Attempt @mirrorless! (Eye Rolled) Haven't anyone heard of EOS-M?

Jonathan Brady said:

Given the diameter of the lens mount of the R system, it'll be difficult to minimize the size of the camera bodies and lenses of a theoretical APSC R system.

Click to expand...

We have to keep in mind that the Canon mirrorless system is, in the long run, at a disadvantage by having two different, incompatible mounts for APS-C and FF. Sony handles both APS-C and FF with their E-mount. And now that Sigma/Panasonic/Leica are teaming up with the L mount, that's another competitor. Currently, Leica uses the L mount for both their APS-C and FF mirrorless bodies and lenses. The Leica FF mirrorless lenses are called "SL" lenses, and the Leica APS-C mirrorless lenses are called "TL" lenses, but both use the L mount. That means that Panasonic and Sigma will also be contributing APS-C and FF bodies and lenses using the L mount. Both Sony and Panasonic/Sigma/Leica will be offering APS-C/FF cross-compatibility and an upgrade path with their APS-C/FF systems. Therefore, I think it's only a matter of time before Canon also brings APS-C to the RF mount.

Leica L mount: one mount, two formats (APS-C and FF).

Here's the APS-C Leica "TL" model compared to the FF Leica "SL" model:



View: original size



View: original size



View: original size

Leica has two APS-C models, the TL and the CL. Here's the APS-C Leica "CL" model compared to the FF Leica "SL" model:



View: original size



View: original size



View: original size

With the new Panasonic/Sigma/Leica partnership, I would expect Panasonic and Sigma versions of all these bodies (APS-C and FF).

david01234 said:

Canon just took the top spot for MILC sales in Japan for the first half of 2018 led by the EOS M series and you are now concluding that it is dead. Can you share what it is you're smoking. A few years ago, Canon was not even in the top 3 in MILC sales in Japan. Now, Canon is number 1, followed by Olympus, with Sony in 3rd place

Click to expand...

The fallacy is believing that people in Japan are buying it because it's EOS M. The reality is that people in Japan are buying it because it's a Canon. Therefore, an APS-C Rebel R would likely sell just as well, if no better, than the EOS M because it's also a Canon.

david01234 said:

If you have an inkling on the Canon business model for camera products, you will notice that Canon caters to all market segments. For DSLR's, Canon has the entry-level consumer models, the enthusiast, semi-professional models and the professional models. This philosophy will extend into its MILC segment.

Click to expand...

Smart market segmentation is what Canon has done in their DSLR line, all built around one common mount, the EF mount. Here's what smart segmentation looks like:



Eventually, we will see the same segmentation in the EOS R line up, offering both APS-C and FF built around one common mount, the RF mount. EOS M will eventually go away.

R2D2 said:

Alas, more Doom & Gloom for the M System. :-|

I realize some here are disappointed that the M System didn’t morph into a magical do-everything APS-C + FF super-system, with all of the gizmos and large-aperture M lenses a person could ever possibly wish for. (And heck, I guess I’d be disappointed too if those were my own expectations).

But the M Series never ever was meant to be that pie-in-the-sky system. In fact nothing in the entire history of the series has ever hinted at that. It was conceived, designed, and positioned in the market to be a very Small, Light, and Economical alternative camera system offering. To stand all on its own. (With the entire EF/EF-S lens line behind it of course ).

So don’t fret. Canon will stay with this winning combination. It makes good money sense for them!

For those who want something more from mirrorless, the writing on the wall couldn’t be clearer. It’s known as EOS R. And soon to be accompanied by APS-C R. Lots of new bodies, lots of new lenses. (plus don’t forget all those great existing EF lenses).

So stick with the M Series for those times that you want to go small and light. Or buy into the R Series for the serious stuff. For the DSLR crowd, those’ll still remain an option during the transition, and high-end DSLRs for even longer. Canon will continue to give us all these choices for as long as the demand remains there. That’s what Canon does.

Cheers!

R2

Click to expand...

But eventually, Canon will produce APS-C EOS R that are similarly small, light and economical And at that point, EOS M sales are going to decline. And Canon will use that as their justification of discontinuing the EOS M system.

All EF-M lenses could very easily be re-purposed for the RF mount. All they'd have to do is replace the EF-M mount with the RF mount, and increase the diameter at the base of the lens to accommodate the larger RF mount. The resulting lenses would look much like some of Oly's lenses, with a flared base:

crashpc said:

Here is what R-mount compact camera could look like:



It would be quite nice, but I believe that Canon will not do this. Maybe they do this, while slapping APS-C sensor in there. Who knows. I would buy that in a heartbeat, but untill then, Sony looks like it can cram largest sensor in the smallest and affordable body...

Click to expand...

Canon seems to think they are alone in the mirrorless market. That's obviously not true. For example, Panasonic/Leica/Sigma are now joining forces around the Leica L mount. Right now they are only talking FF mirrorless for the L mount, but Leica uses the L mount for both their APS-C and FF mirrorless bodies and lenses.

From Wikipedia:

"The L-mount exists in two versions, an APS-C version (TL) and a full frame version (SL). The two versions are mechanically and electronically compatible. TL lenses mounted on the SL will cause the camera to use a 10 Mpix crop-mode from the center of the sensor, corresponding to the APS-C coverage of the lens. SL lenses mounted on TL cameras function normally, providing a 1.5x crop field of view, as is typical with APS-C cameras."

So it is extremely likely that this alliance will also include APS-C bodies and lenses, to complement and expand Leica's current APS-C mirrorless offerings that also use the L mount.

Here are the TL and CL (APS-C bodies) compared to the SL (FF body):



View: original size





View: original size





View: original size

007peter said:

We're probably get to see a M5 II / M6 II, but after that, probably little to no more lens or camera body, then remove any mentioning of EOS-M from Canon White Paper (as OP said) and website pretending EOS-M never existed much like Samsung did with NX.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference if Canon releases any more M bodies. The same holds for all ILC companies. We are at peak sensor. There isn't much more they can do using existing technology.

Examples: The M50's sensor has pretty much exactly the same performance (except for low light AF) as the M6 and M5 sensors.



Source. The R has a 5D-IV like sensor and nobody is claiming that it is any better than the 5D-IV. In fact...

If they started using computational photography technologies (like current flagship smartphones use to punch way above their sensor's class) then new bodies would be something to get excited about.

Barring that, I don't much care if Canon releases any more Ms. I have an original M, an M6, and an M50. I don't expect that any M6/5 II bodies will perform any better. A few more M lenses would be nice but the line they already have fits the niche of "small, but having half decent image quality". I wouldn't expect a 15-45mm II lens to offer much improvement, would you? The only lens I would be interested in would be an EF-M 9-14mm lens to complement my 15-45mm lens. Otherwise, they pretty much have all the EF-M class lenses that are needed. The adapter works if I want to use EF lenses.

My Pixel 2 works fine for m4/3 quality that fits in my jeans pocket. But even smartphones seem to be stalling out with image quality. Other than the race to stick as many sensors as they can in.

It isn't the best of times nor the worst of times; it is the boringist of times.

Wayne

T3 said:

But eventually, Canon will produce APS-C EOS R that are similarly small, light and economical And at that point, EOS M sales are going to decline. And Canon will use that as their justification of discontinuing the EOS M system.

All EF-M lenses could very easily be re-purposed for the RF mount. All they'd have to do is replace the EF-M mount with the RF mount, and increase the diameter at the base of the lens to accommodate the larger RF mount. The resulting lenses would look much like some of Oly's lenses, with a flared base:

Click to expand...

Mmmm... maybe, but also, maybe not. Remember, the EOS M has an 18mm flange distance whereas the EOS R has a 20mm flange distance. So, the M lens will need to sit inside of the R mount. That's probably doable given that the R mount is 10mm wider, but, I'm not an optical engineer so what do I know?