High End M Rumour

Alastair Norcross said:

AprilSum said:

Rock and Rollei said:

AprilSum said:

Isn't eos rp better? I am confused that why stick with eos M since the price of rp is comparable to the M6II and will be lower than the high end M bodys. Am I missing something here except higher pixel and fps? Please enlighten me.

Click to expand...

Define "better". I have an R, 5D IV, 5DS R, 7D II and a 6D in my armoury. The M6 II is massively better for me than the RP because (a) it's smaller, and more importantly (b) the lenses are MUCH smaller. So it's ideal for travel for me, especially when travelling cabin baggage only. Now if size isn't critical, and you don't have half of Canon's camera output for the last 5 years, then yes, you might consider the RP "better". Any camera choice is always a compromise between size/weight, performance/IQ and cost. The M6 II is actually already in a place where it can pretty much replace the 7D II and 6D for my needs - the RP would replace the 6D easily enough, but not the 7D II, and wouldn't do the travel job quite as well.

Click to expand...

I feel you now. Basically, RP and RF lens kit is better technically but not suitable for travel.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "better technically". And I'm not sure which RF kit lens you're referring to. The RP sensor is about 2/3 stop cleaner at high ISO than the M6II sensor. That's pretty much the only advantage the RP has over the M6II.

Click to expand...

The standard zoom options for the RP are better.

Asla said:

I admit I didn't even open the link. End of it says a lot = CR1

Click to expand...

Add to that the possibility that some planned products may be cancelled, due to the state of the economy/industry.

PhotosByHall said:

David M. Anglin said:

I plan to jump from DSLR's to the R5 / RF lenses once the new gear is released. I love the fact that I can use my EF lenses with the M, EF and new R cameras. As I look at my gear strategy moving forward, I plan to eliminate DSLR EF bodies and eventually EF lenses. I use the M as a small backup to my EF system and this has worked very well. It gives me the option to have a small travel body with small, light lenses AND the ability to adapt to the EF system as a backup. I would really like a robust M5? (m6 II minimum spec, slightly larger body, grip option, weather sealing, HIGH REFRESH RATE EVF, etc.) that continue in that backup role and provide a more compact system when I want to travel light. The problem is that I can't have one set of hight quality lenses that can be used by both the R & M bodies. Bottom line is that I would prefer M move to an RF mount or give me an for RF to M mount so I can share lenses. I would be really happy to see the Canon equivalent of a Fuji X-T4 especially if they could give me some way to use the RF lenses. Think M5 II + RF 100-500 (160-800) when I need the reach.

I know, I can dream.

Click to expand...

I generally agree.

Anyone that asks me about buying 'serious' camera gear now can't believe it when I recommend 2nd hand mirrorless to them. I don't recommend DSLRs now to anyone who is not thinking of 'going pro' (and there are plenty of Pros now that are working just fine with mirrorless cameras.)

However, you already have a set of high quality lenses that work with R and M and that's EF lenses

For kit lens, I use either an 18-55 or a 17-40L (speedboosted where appropriate) depending on where i am going and a 70-300 for zoom. Whack a teleconverter on there and you've got your 700mm lens. There's perfect coverage from 19mm - 672mm with 2 lenses.

Seriously though, the EF lenses are the most adaptable and flexible of the lot - I don't think you will save a huge amount of weight or space moving EF over to R. What I can guarantee you is you will spend a huge amount of money. What I will do at some point is buy an R body when they are reasonably priced and add it to the above travel kit!

Click to expand...

I know my EF lenses are great, but the reality is that I don't need any of this gear, I am old guy, and photography is my one major vice (cars are out because of vision). My attitude is that I might as well enjoy new gear while I am vertical and still able to lug around the weight. All of my 2020 trips have been canceled or moved to 2021 and I decided to move to mirrorless so I can be ready for - assuming we have a vaccine or effective treatment for COVID. I decided to sell my 200-400 since I am getting a little tired of the extra weight (8lbs) and my 100-400 covers the range even though it is slower, not quite as sharp and lacks the integrated 1.4x TC. I don't need to sell the rest of my EF gear, but my plan is to move to 2 primary lenses with the R5, 24-105 f4 L IS and 100-500 f4.5-7.1 L IS and it doesn't' make sense to let the rest collect dust. Even thought it is overlap, I will probably hang on to my 70-200 f4 L IS II since it is sharp, light and a great fit on the M6 II or future high end M. I don't have an issue with adaptors other than I left one behind on a day trip that caused a few issues.

Yes. A high end body without better lenses is meaningless to me. If I have only the existing M lenses available, then I 'll go with a M6.2 and use it only for casual shots.

Much better. And, that is what I want in a casual travel cam. But, I'd like to be able to use M mount lenses for more serious stuff sometimes and not have to resort to my L's.

Johnrr44 said:

Yes. A high end body without better lenses is meaningless to me. If I have only the existing M lenses available, then I 'll go with a M6.2 and use it only for casual shots.

Click to expand...

Johnrr44 said:

Much better. And, that is what I want in a casual travel cam. But, I'd like to be able to use M mount lenses for more serious stuff sometimes and not have to resort to my L's.

Click to expand...

What would you like to see in an EF-M Mount lens? What would you like to shoot (that's serious)?

I'd like a fast standard zoom myself. Maybe a new 85 too.

R2

Efm 15 - 60 f2.8 - 4.0 at ef 24-105 L IQ. The 11 - 22 is good enough for my use. When I travel I don't feel I need to go longer than efm 85mm with f1.4. I'm not selling my L's, as I will still have a ff I use. I want a M5.2 (or ?) to travel with/casual photos that I can print 12X18" & sometimes larger. Of course, the technique I use with my M kit typically is downgraded, at no fault of the kit that I currently have. When I've used a tripod and remote, delayed shutter, I get much better results. Duh. I have a good 15-45, good 18-150 & good 22. I should get the 30mm. They are good for what they are: compact, light inexpensive, & fairly good performance. I dream of R5-RF performance in the M system.

jkcz said:

https://www.canonrumors.com/a-higher-end-eos-m-body-is-in-the-pipeline-cr1/

What would they improve to make it better than we had expected? The source says “greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.

I think that at this point they need to release better lenses but we won't say no to a high performance new body.

Click to expand...

we commented on this rumor as well... I think that Canon may be doing a dual prong approach to fixing the "7D problem".

you can get a $4K R5 with build quality, bird AF,etc.

or you can get a $1.5K EOS-M with okay build quality, maybe bird AF etc..

depends on which way you want to go.

according to all the complaining birders - all they ever use is super telephotos, so either choice should be fine for them with an adapter.

R2D2 said:

Johnrr44 said:

Yes. A high end body without better lenses is meaningless to me. If I have only the existing M lenses available, then I 'll go with a M6.2 and use it only for casual shots.

Much better. And, that is what I want in a casual travel cam. But, I'd like to be able to use M mount lenses for more serious stuff sometimes and not have to resort to my L's.

Click to expand...

What would you like to see in an EF-M Mount lens? What would you like to shoot (that's serious)?

I'd like a fast standard zoom myself. Maybe a new 85 too.

R2

Click to expand...

those two I'd probably like to see. but not at the expense of size/weight.

I like the EOS M bodies and concept, but wonder whether its worth investing in because of the lenses.

I use EOS FF, and crop bodies as a smaller, lighter option. Problem is, while EF-S lenses are relatively sharp, that's about it. Perhaps 80-90% of the time I use my EF-L glass because the results are that much better (mainly colour and contrast for me. And less distortion. And less fringing...)

I can't be bothered with adapters, so until EOS M gets a least one 'good' standard zoom, it seems kinda pointless for my demands.

R2D2 said:

Johnrr44 said:

Yes. A high end body without better lenses is meaningless to me. If I have only the existing M lenses available, then I 'll go with a M6.2 and use it only for casual shots.

Much better. And, that is what I want in a casual travel cam. But, I'd like to be able to use M mount lenses for more serious stuff sometimes and not have to resort to my L's.

Click to expand...

What would you like to see in an EF-M Mount lens? What would you like to shoot (that's serious)?

I'd like a fast standard zoom myself. Maybe a new 85 too.

R2

Click to expand...

If they come out with a robust M body (a little bigger, tougher, weather sealed, fast refresh EVF) I would like to see a high-quality, reasonably compact 100–300/312mm f4-6.3 with L quality optics. I know, only in my dreams but I didn’t ask for f5.6@300/312mm because I would like it to be smaller and lighter than the EF lenses - weather sealing of course. With the right M body, this could be a killer wildlife package (160mm-500mm). I doubt this could match FF wildlife gear, but it would be worth the trade off for light & versatile gear. Would certainly help with baggage weight limitations in Africa. I know this would be a very expensive set up. Do I want this, yes. Do I expect something like this, no.

Johnrr44 said:

Yes. A high end body without better lenses is meaningless to me. If I have only the existing M lenses available, then I 'll go with a M6.2 and use it only for casual shots.

Click to expand...

I would agree with you. But the 1.4 Sigma trio makes it more compelling for me if I want to use that camera for traveling. When not traveling, I have no problem using an adaptor and using my ef-s lenses.

Peak freak said:

I like the EOS M bodies and concept, but wonder whether its worth investing in because of the lenses.

Click to expand...

there's really not much to the ecosystem that would involve the word: "investing" there's only two lenses that are over $400 each. the rest are less than that.

The bodies (sans M6 Mark II) are pretty cheap and you can get used ones for a dime a dozen (just ignore the M3)

jkcz said:

https://www.canonrumors.com/a-higher-end-eos-m-body-is-in-the-pipeline-cr1/

What would they improve to make it better than we had expected? The source says “greater durability and performance than you’d expect from an M5 follow-up”.

I think that at this point they need to release better lenses but we won't say no to a high performance new body.

Click to expand...

An M5 follow up will basically be a m6II camera with an evf. Something better would be a camera that can compete with the Fuji XT-4. Video specs like 4K60, better CAF for stills, a more high-resolution EVF, better DR, better high ISO performance etc.

I really don't understand why people keep comparing the M system with RF system and why the existence of the one must mean the disappearance of the other. Is it so hard to understand that they are different tools for different jobs for different people? I just looked at the prices of the two systems here in Greece and guess what, you can buy all of the EF-M lenses for 2596 euros. That's the price for all the lenses of the system. You can buy the M6 mark ii with the kit lens and the EVF for 947 euros. You can buy the 32mm, which is the best and most expensive lens of the system, for 549 euros. At the same time you need 1099 euros for the RP (body and adapter only) and 509 euros for the 35mm. So let me say this again, you can buy the best and most expensive M camera with the kit lens and EVF at a lower price than the cheapest RF camera. And you can buy the best and most expensive M mount lens at almost the same price as the cheapest RF lens. Not all photographers out there are pros or have large amounts of money to spend on cameras. Some of us want to do our hobby at minimum weight, size and price and at the same time with acceptable for some, or very high for others, image quality. I mean if we all need the perfect camera with the perfect lens then the only camera that should existed should be the 1DX and the only lenses would be the L lenses. Well how many people would spent all that money for photography? I definitely wouldn't. Diversification is good! We need big cameras, small cameras, fast cameras, slow cameras, we need all kinds of cameras and lenses because we have all kinds of users. I have said it before, the M system is not the best system, not even close but your best is different than my best. The M is the best value for money system out there and I am really happy new cameras and lenses are coming. Just my opinion!

konsolas_captures said:

I really don't understand why people keep comparing the M system with RF system and why the existence of the one must mean the disappearance of the other.

Click to expand...

Both systems have their place, but for some folks it's hard to choose these days which system to use as their main system.

When you have the budget for M6mkII + 18-150mm or RP + RF 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 stm you really need a crystal ball to decide what's the best choice in the long run, especially if you don't want to end up with two systems.

Point taken, but I just think the price range of the two is very different.

konsolas_captures said:

Point taken, but I just think the price range of the two is very different.

Click to expand...

Nowadays those price points are becoming closer, like the example i gave you. High end M and budget RF is more and more becoming the same market segment. In general the M6mkII is a better body than the RP. And lenses like that RP + RF 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 stm aren't much more expensive than lenses like the the ef-m 18-150. Where size isn't a concern the RP can also be paired with second hand EF glass. It's never completely apples to apples of course. But the days full frame had very expensive options only are over, and that might be a more important change for the RF mount than the f/1.2 prime IQ improvements.

thunder storm said:

konsolas_captures said:

I really don't understand why people keep comparing the M system with RF system and why the existence of the one must mean the disappearance of the other.

Click to expand...

Both systems have their place, but for some folks it's hard to choose these days which system to use as their main system.

When you have the budget for M6mkII + 18-150mm or RP + RF 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 stm you really need a crystal ball to decide what's the best choice in the long run, especially if you don't want to end up with two systems.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, and by comparing these two kits exclusively, I would choose the m6 II if I wanted to shoot more moving objects, and the rp if I wanted to shoot more in low light where the full frame will give me better image quality even with that slow lens. Also if I was keen on shooting landscapes, I’d choose the m6 II because its sensor is more flexible than the one on the rp and the kit is lighter when one is out and about.

Swerky said:

thunder storm said:

konsolas_captures said:

I really don't understand why people keep comparing the M system with RF system and why the existence of the one must mean the disappearance of the other.

Click to expand...

Both systems have their place, but for some folks it's hard to choose these days which system to use as their main system.

When you have the budget for M6mkII + 18-150mm or RP + RF 24-105 f/4.0-7.1 stm you really need a crystal ball to decide what's the best choice in the long run, especially if you don't want to end up with two systems.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, and by comparing these two kits exclusively, I would choose the m6 II if I wanted to shoot more moving objects,

Click to expand...

Short term M6 is the better option, but the RF mount has the USM glass, so in the long run RF might be better.

Swerky said:

and the rp if I wanted to shoot more in low light where the full frame will give me better image quality even with that slow lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the body isn't the long term investment for that, and the body isn't either, and for these type of shooting primes are often the better choice, but the full RF prime line up lenses (and the prices) aren't know yet.

Swerky said:

Also if I was keen on shooting landscapes, I’d choose the m6 II because its sensor is more flexible than the one on the rp and the kit is lighter when one is out and about.

Click to expand...

With the 11-22mm and 32mm, yes, and the size weight advantage is future proof.