Reading mode: Light Dark

Where next after M?

Go to last post
Tomsop said:
I looked quickly at the specs and I know that I will get better photos with the R7 system and without a doubt better 4K video with it but not sure if I want another crop camera. They are marketing this for me - for travel and family vacation type usage. Yet for the price of the R7 I can get a Panasonic Lumix S5 - which has full frame and very good 4K video abilities. Most people with the M chose not to go full frame for reasons other than cost - what is it about crop factor that make it better than full frame, or is it, for travel and family photos?
Click to expand...
I went for the Panasonic S5 after ditching EF-M at the beginning of this year.
The price was very respectable. I was shocked by how good the kit lens was and the images coming out compared to my M6II.

I picked up the 24-105mm shortly after and I've never looked back - now that I've discovered that zoom lenses aren't terrible I feel daft for having juggled swapping about multiple prime lenses on my M6 whilst in the middle of taking photos.

Burst mode isn't anywhere near as high as the M6II, however I've found that to not be a problem with the photos I take.

I initially went for EF-M due to the size - that's what I thought I needed.. however I no longer find size an issue and I'll just put up with it.. however I look at the R7/R10 and I do feel like they've missed a trick there - for those where size *is* a factor.. they're much bulkier than the M6?

I do still kinda yearn for a smaller body on those days that I'm not intending to go out taking photos, and just want a camera on me "just incase".. however I couldn't really do that even with my M6II, that didn't fit into my small bag. I also disliked the ergonomics of the M100/M200 series too. I might pick up a M34 one maybe.
 
DjangoChained said:
Tomsop said:
I looked quickly at the specs and I know that I will get better photos with the R7 system and without a doubt better 4K video with it but not sure if I want another crop camera. They are marketing this for me - for travel and family vacation type usage. Yet for the price of the R7 I can get a Panasonic Lumix S5 - which has full frame and very good 4K video abilities. Most people with the M chose not to go full frame for reasons other than cost - what is it about crop factor that make it better than full frame, or is it, for travel and family photos?
Click to expand...
I recently asked myself the same question - moved away from Eos M, ended up with Nikon Z (full frame).

Reasons that speak for APS-C: smaller, more travel friendly system. For the same money, you get high end crop vs entry level FF.

Reasons that speak against APS-C: if you want APS-C, you have to buy Fuji, the other brands make no sense. And I personally didn't like the Fuji bodies: X-t4 has a weird grip and I dislike the ergonomics; X-s10 EVF not good enough for my taste. Had the X-h2 be released, I might have decided differently.

I would not buy the other brands: Sony has all but abandoned crop. Nikon has almost no crop lenses and no high end body (with good AF, good EVF, IBIS). Canon R7 seems decent, but hardly any lenses which make sense.

I personally wouldn't dream of buying crop and putting full frame lenses on - what's the point then ？
Click to expand...
There's no point, as the compact primes have slow AF so there's no advantage of the improved AF system of these cameras, and the affordable zooms with USM AF are too dark and not sharp enough for crop sensors.

When Canon ports over the ef-m primes to the RF mount without giving it faster AF nothing improves really.

So you need to pay the prices of RF L primes and zooms to make make that improved AF of the body work, or,..... you will buy these bodies to adapt EF L glass. But if that's the plan, what's the point of these bodies? It's not more compact, and the new mount is not a benefit.

My advice: save up and get the A7IV or the A7C. Nikon Z full frame might make sense as well. Canon said goodbye to compactness. Aps-c became a niche.
 
rz64 said:
Craig Smith said:
With the announcement of the R7, it seems quite clear to me the that Canon's future pathway for APS-C will revolve around R bodies and the RF/RF-S mount.

Now for the bad news. The R7 will have the same level of auto focus technology that exists in the R5/R6. I purchased the R6 last year and have barely touched my M6 MkII since then.

The reason has been the auto focus. While my M6 MkII is hunting around trying to lock in focus under low light, the R6 has already hit dozens of times without fail. It's hard to give up something that delivers great results and has very few limitations.

Those who move from the M over to, or start fresh with an R7 are going to experience that same amazing auto focus system and never want to go back.

The M's are fun little cameras. Unfortunately, the technology they need to move forward is now being given to an RF/RF-S system.
Click to expand...
After having read your comment I asked myself, how I can survive with my old and small M6 MkI (!).
I must admit that I rarely shoot sportevents or our running dog. But, nevertheless, even in these rare cases my M6 is working quite good.
And for non-moving-subjects, I have no problems with AF at all.

Despite your promotion for the R5/R6/R7, I will continue living with my M6 MkI, I will enjoy this "old little fun camera". I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Very well said.

I have never understood people moving to a more expensive system, then coming back to promote their new system and at the same time bash the M system. Maybe they are just searching for confirmation or justification for themselves to spend all the money on something they really didn't need?
 
Last edited:
MyM6II said:
rz64 said:
Craig Smith said:
With the announcement of the R7, it seems quite clear to me the that Canon's future pathway for APS-C will revolve around R bodies and the RF/RF-S mount.

Now for the bad news. The R7 will have the same level of auto focus technology that exists in the R5/R6. I purchased the R6 last year and have barely touched my M6 MkII since then.

The reason has been the auto focus. While my M6 MkII is hunting around trying to lock in focus under low light, the R6 has already hit dozens of times without fail. It's hard to give up something that delivers great results and has very few limitations.

Those who move from the M over to, or start fresh with an R7 are going to experience that same amazing auto focus system and never want to go back.

The M's are fun little cameras. Unfortunately, the technology they need to move forward is now being given to an RF/RF-S system.
Click to expand...
After having read your comment I asked myself, how I can survive with my old and small M6 MkI (!).
I must admit that I rarely shoot sportevents or our running dog. But, nevertheless, even in these rare cases my M6 is working quite good.
And for non-moving-subjects, I have no problems with AF at all.

Despite your promotion for the R5/R6/R7, I will continue living with my M6 MkI, I will enjoy this "old little fun camera". I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Very well said.

I have never understood people moving to a more expensive system, then coming back to promote their new system and at the same time bash the M system. Maybe they are just searching for confirmation or justification for themselves to spend all the money on something they really didn't need?
Click to expand...
:-)
 
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
 
MAC said:
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
Click to expand...
R7 is more of a spray and pray camera ? :)
 
RebeccasPhotos said:
Tomsop said:
I looked quickly at the specs and I know that I will get better photos with the R7 system and without a doubt better 4K video with it but not sure if I want another crop camera. They are marketing this for me - for travel and family vacation type usage. Yet for the price of the R7 I can get a Panasonic Lumix S5 - which has full frame and very good 4K video abilities. Most people with the M chose not to go full frame for reasons other than cost - what is it about crop factor that make it better than full frame, or is it, for travel and family photos?
Click to expand...
I went for the Panasonic S5 after ditching EF-M at the beginning of this year.
The price was very respectable. I was shocked by how good the kit lens was and the images coming out compared to my M6II.
Click to expand...


b4ba064af02a40629c23924e7c7e6975.jpg.png


This is the local price for Panny S5.

Just to put things into perspective the local price for EOS R6 is only 30 k higher.

For this kind of money I kind of hope S5 is better but I have a feeling you'll end up with less photos and more phone photos because the best camera in the world is one you are holding.
RebeccasPhotos said:
I picked up the 24-105mm shortly after and I've never looked back - now that I've discovered that zoom lenses aren't terrible I feel daft for having juggled swapping about multiple prime lenses on my M6 whilst in the middle of taking photos.
Burst mode isn't anywhere near as high as the M6II, however I've found that to not be a problem with the photos I take.
I initially went for EF-M due to the size - that's what I thought I needed.. however I no longer find size an issue and I'll just put up with it.. however I look at the R7/R10 and I do feel like they've missed a trick there - for those where size *is* a factor.. they're much bulkier than the M6?
I do still kinda yearn for a smaller body on those days that I'm not intending to go out taking photos, and just want a camera on me "just incase".. however I couldn't really do that even with my M6II, that didn't fit into my small bag. I also disliked the ergonomics of the M100/M200 series too. I might pick up a M34 one maybe.
Click to expand...
--
KEG
 
rz64 said:
MyM6II said:
rz64 said:
Craig Smith said:
With the announcement of the R7, it seems quite clear to me the that Canon's future pathway for APS-C will revolve around R bodies and the RF/RF-S mount.

Now for the bad news. The R7 will have the same level of auto focus technology that exists in the R5/R6. I purchased the R6 last year and have barely touched my M6 MkII since then.

The reason has been the auto focus. While my M6 MkII is hunting around trying to lock in focus under low light, the R6 has already hit dozens of times without fail. It's hard to give up something that delivers great results and has very few limitations.

Those who move from the M over to, or start fresh with an R7 are going to experience that same amazing auto focus system and never want to go back.

The M's are fun little cameras. Unfortunately, the technology they need to move forward is now being given to an RF/RF-S system.
Click to expand...
After having read your comment I asked myself, how I can survive with my old and small M6 MkI (!).
I must admit that I rarely shoot sportevents or our running dog. But, nevertheless, even in these rare cases my M6 is working quite good.
And for non-moving-subjects, I have no problems with AF at all.

Despite your promotion for the R5/R6/R7, I will continue living with my M6 MkI, I will enjoy this "old little fun camera". I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Very well said.

I have never understood people moving to a more expensive system, then coming back to promote their new system and at the same time bash the M system.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
At some time in the future I am going to get a Leica M, the current price of small vehicle is currently the only thing stopping me, I kind of hope Leica + noktilux will get me improved results.
rz64 said:
rz64 said:
Maybe they are just searching for confirmation or justification for themselves to spend all the money on something they really didn't need?
Click to expand...
:-)
Click to expand...
--
KEG
 
Last edited:
m100 said:
MAC said:
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
Click to expand...
R7 is more of a spray and pray camera ? :)
Click to expand...
I've sprayed and prayed since my d30 clear up to my 7dII :)

Jared P though says the R7 is stickier than the Z9 -- hmm, I need to find the right action glass
 
m100 said:
MAC said:
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
Click to expand...
R7 is more of a spray and pray camera ? :)
Click to expand...
And I sure do not have any thing against spray and pray photography. It has its place.

I remember watching people holding pro cameras above their heads after the superbowl all packed around Tom Brady spraying and praying. :)
 
MAC said:
m100 said:
MAC said:
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
Click to expand...
R7 is more of a spray and pray camera ? :)
Click to expand...
I've sprayed and prayed since my d30 clear up to my 7dII :)

Jared P though says the R7 is stickier than the Z9 -- hmm, I need to find the right action glass
Click to expand...
Right ?

Time to upgrade my 7D ! :)
 
Tomsop said:
I looked at the sample gallery and I was amazed at the detail in the pictures. Makes me also wonder if full frame is really necessary. Maybe I was doing something wrong but I was not getting that clarity in my M photos - and then again the sample gallery was put together by a pro.

I agree what others said - not ready to rush out yet to update anything.
Click to expand...
You make a good point about FF. It's something I've been thinking about lately as well.

Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that FF is viewed as "standard" because 35mm became the industry standard. Perhaps there's something about that particular size and format combined with a level of mathematical physics I don't quite understand that makes photos taken with that size frame and specifically designed lenses more aesthetically pleasing than other formats. (for example, the amount of bokeh achievable with a given size lens and camera pairing).

A veritable "Goldilocks" zone in sensor/film sizes perhaps?

Or maybe, if another film size had become the standard, FF would be very different. (I can't help but be reminded of VHS and Betamax).

FF does often appear to be a holy grail for many aspiring photographers, and I'm unsure if its reverence is truly deserved.
 
m100 said:
MAC said:
m100 said:
MAC said:
rz64 said:
I save a lot of size and weight, a lot of money, I get fantastic results with my 11-22mm, 32mm and my Sigma 56mm, and I have no problem to take my camera wherever I want.

Kind regards,
rz64
Click to expand...
if sports and wildlife are not one's thing, then m and these three are hard to beat
Click to expand...
R7 is more of a spray and pray camera ? :)
Click to expand...
I've sprayed and prayed since my d30 clear up to my 7dII :)

Jared P though says the R7 is stickier than the Z9 -- hmm, I need to find the right action glass
Click to expand...
Right ?

Time to upgrade my 7D ! :)
Click to expand...
or wait for the FF 83 mpxl that produces 32 mpxl files in crop mode :)
 
I also use the M-system because of its small size, low weight and very good image quality.
A smart phone is not yet good enough for me as main photo device.

Bulk and convenience/handling are very important aspects for me when out shooting.
I love the IQ and wide range of the EF-M 11-22mm and the versatility of the EF-M 18-150mm!

I conducted an 1" experiement with Lumix TZ202/200 in early 2019. To my surprise the IQ was good enough for my taste and applications.
During the pandemic, I did a lot of research, comparisons etc. and ended up with a Sony RX 100VII as my pocket camera and a Sony RX 10 IV as main travel camera, covering 24-600mm with just 1 very fine lens.
The RX 10 was initially intended as tele/Wildlife addition to my M gear instead of a 100-400mm lens on my M6 body. Covering 24-600mm, I am no longer puzzeled which lenses to pack for trip.

After a short intermezzo with Canon RP and 24-240mm it will be unlikely that I will go FF any time soon. Too bulkyy, too expensive.

This year, I will travel 3x to different locations and use/test the 2 Sonys instead of my M-system.
Both cameras start at 24mm (FF eqv.) which really suits my personal preference (24-200mm) at the wide end. 18mm =>28/29mm is often not wide enough, especially in Europe.

I will keep my M-gear for now and see how this year's photography evolves for me.

--
May THE LIGHT be with you!
 
Last edited:
Tomsop said:
I looked quickly at the specs and I know that I will get better photos with the R7 system and without a doubt better 4K video with it but not sure if I want another crop camera. They are marketing this for me - for travel and family vacation type usage. Yet for the price of the R7 I can get a Panasonic Lumix S5 - which has full frame and very good 4K video abilities. Most people with the M chose not to go full frame for reasons other than cost - what is it about crop factor that make it better than full frame, or is it, for travel and family photos?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if "most people" chose crop over M for reasons other than cost. The views represented in these forums are not representative of all crop sensor camera buyers. For example, the M series has consistently topped the sales charts in Japan for a number of years. Are these all photography enthusiasts like us forum members, or are they just casual users who want a good value camera that's better than their phone?

That said. My reasons are three-fold. Cost, size (and weight) and features. After a couple of 110 compacts as a kid, my first 'proper' camera was a Minolta Dynax 7000i. Lovely camera, but it was a beast. I still remember toting a large gadget bag around just for the body and a couple of lenses. And TBH, I didn't really learn much about the art and pretty much stuck to P mode.

I dropped photography as an interest for a few years until my first foray into digital photography, with a Sony DSC-H1. This was replaced by a Canon G12, which was when I started really learning about the technical aspects and realised my small sensor wasn't going to give me the bokeh I desired. I could leave the G12 wide open and still have great DOF. I happened to by Tupe'd over to Canon from Oce when the M series started to gain traction. So I used my generous staff discount to bag an M3, 22mm, 18-55mm and 55-200mm, and the EVF unit. I was fairly content, but the M5 came out later and fixed the niggling issues I had. I finally picked a used one up a couple of years ago and I'm quite content with my system now and I have no immediate desire to replace it all with something from the R series.

The lenses are not super expensive to expand and M system. It's also a joy to be able to stuff a couple of lenses into a small shoulder bag for a day out without carting a dedicated gadget bag around - it's certainly less noticeable to potential thieves. Or I can create a potent, near pocketable camera by simply sticking the little 22mm on it (I'm consistently amazed by the quality of this little gem of a lens).

When I think back to what I started with, this little M5 is incredible. I didn't realise it at the time, but the kit lens I had on that old Minolta was widely regarded as "crap". My little M5 takes vastly superior images, with better bokeh and sharpness, and my current lenses are capable of a shallower DOF, wider field of view as well as more reach in a smaller package. I have no desire at this time for a larger FF package. The crop does everything I need from a camera system.
 
Last edited:
Tomsop said:
I looked quickly at the specs and I know that I will get better photos with the R7 system and without a doubt better 4K video with it but not sure if I want another crop camera. They are marketing this for me - for travel and family vacation type usage. Yet for the price of the R7 I can get a Panasonic Lumix S5 - which has full frame and very good 4K video abilities. Most people with the M chose not to go full frame for reasons other than cost - what is it about crop factor that make it better than full frame, or is it, for travel and family photos?
Click to expand...
I just checked out the Adorama yTube video which had an Canon Rep on hand. He seems to indicate that the M series was here to say. I have to re-watch again to be certain. The R7 and R10 was an clear logical move for Canon as they have to sooner than later, move away from LARGE production of DSLRs. Which by the way, over the last two year, they have sold way more than mirrorless interchangeable camera.

There are actually a ton of folks that chose to do both cropped Sensors and FF. I have done exactly that with my Sony System. Which is currently outdated for what I intend to do in the future. The Canon EOS R7 & R10 might be one of the smartest moves Canon has done in years. It's an excellent pathway into the Canon system for not only DSLRs users, but anyone else from any System for a variety of reasons. Initial test showing Stellar AF being just one of many.
 
One thing I have trouble understanding is why Canon or others, possibly in collaboration with Google or Apple etc, could not apply computational photography to a medium sized sensor camera like APS-C.

The incredible images from smartphones that have decimated the camera market for consumers are largely due to the computational magic. Would it not be possible to apply similar but with the "base images" of a larger sensor and high quality lenses (like Eos-M) and similarly outperform (in most ways that people care about) larger sensor cameras?

Could the answer be in the image processing and not in the next sensor, mount or new lens?

(I realize can achieve similar with careful work in Lightroom or similar...but honestly for a great many users that is beyond their interest and ability)
 
lungdoc said:
One thing I have trouble understanding is why Canon or others, possibly in collaboration with Google or Apple etc, could not apply computational photography to a medium sized sensor camera like APS-C.

The incredible images from smartphones that have decimated the camera market for consumers are largely due to the computational magic. Would it not be possible to apply similar but with the "base images" of a larger sensor and high quality lenses (like Eos-M) and similarly outperform (in most ways that people care about) larger sensor cameras?

Could the answer be in the image processing and not in the next sensor, mount or new lens?

(I realize can achieve similar with careful work in Lightroom or similar...but honestly for a great many users that is beyond their interest and ability)
Click to expand...
Camera manufacturing executives still live in the past century. Don't worry. Smartphone companies probably will buy them at the end to do all that you said and more.

--
Flickr. Ioannis_arc
Instagram ioannis_arc
More pixels, less ideas ;)
 
Last edited:
lungdoc said:
One thing I have trouble understanding is why Canon or others, possibly in collaboration with Google or Apple etc, could not apply computational photography to a medium sized sensor camera like APS-C.

The incredible images from smartphones that have decimated the camera market for consumers are largely due to the computational magic. Would it not be possible to apply similar but with the "base images" of a larger sensor and high quality lenses (like Eos-M) and similarly outperform (in most ways that people care about) larger sensor cameras?

Could the answer be in the image processing and not in the next sensor, mount or new lens?

(I realize can achieve similar with careful work in Lightroom or similar...but honestly for a great many users that is beyond their interest and ability)
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes, all of those smartphone computational photography tricks could be applied to any size sensor. One snag is readout speeds, as many of those tricks involve merging multiple shots. While used less frequently, there are instances where smartphones are merging images from multiple camera simultaneously. That new 200mp Samsung smartphone sensor recently featured on the front page of DPReview can readout all 200mp at 7.5 frames per second (fps). Binned down to 50mp and the readout speed jumps to 30fps. At a smartphone typical resolution of 12.5mp, that sensor can read out at 120fp. In comparison, the M6 II tops out at 30fps with a 18mp crop. Basically, the smartphone sensor can read out data 3 times faster than the M6 II sensor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top