What do you plan to do with you M gear?

lumenite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

lumenite wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

pyla wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

I use my M6II with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art, 50mm f/1.4 Art, 70-200mm f/2.8 Sports, 100-400mm Contemporary...... and also with the 32mm f/1.4, and some filming with the 11-22mm.

One can still use the first four lenses on an RF-S camera with adaptor.

I'm aware of that fact. But

The problem with the R7: with kit lens it will be 2000 euro, whereas my M6II was 850 euro kitlens and viewfinder included. The M6II can be paired with the 32mm and 11-22mm. For the R7 these lenses don't exist.

The M6II should be compared to the R10, not the R7.

Why? I'm not willing to go down from 32Mp, and the EF lenses I use with the M6II can handle 32Mp. DR of the M6II is pretty good, not sure if the R10 will match it. I think the R7 will be comparable to the M6II for IQ, the R10 won't.

Having the 18-35mm Art I could go by without the 11-22mm, but there's no fun in shooting crop cameras without that 32mm f/1.4.

Where I live they are roughly the same price (976 Euros vs 1099 Euros (adaptor included) body only. If you find the M6II more attractive than the R10 that is another story.

I believe that Canon will not kill off the M-system, but they will let it die off by making the R-system more attractive. IMO, it is only a matter of time before they release an R50 (an entry level camera) and an RF-S 32 1.4 and an 11-22.

The problem is the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is one of the very few compact, relatively affordable, full frame lenses to lure in customers coming from crop into full frame. A 32mm isn't gonna help with that strategy, as that lens will blow the full frame lens out of the water on a crop sensor. Killing M is basically killing the 32mm, bringing us back to the middle ages where Canon only gave the option for a budget 50mm or a crazy expensive f/1.2 L. The nasty 50mm gap is back again. RIP 32mm. We will remember you as the only Canon compact and affordable yet well performing 50mm field of view lens......

As for now, one of the main reasons to stay with M is its having the trio of 22, 32, and 11-22. But what would most of us do when

That's never. I just explained to you why Canon will never port over the 32mm f/1.4 to the RF mount. Canon doesn't want a concurrent being stronger (on crop) than the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm in the RF line up, as such a lens will keep crop shooters from upgrading to full frame, whereas the 35mm f/1.8 IS stm makes that upgrade even more attractive.

Your point is one of my worries for RFS and one of my reliefs for EFM. Canon has never produced EF-S 30/32/35 1.4.

Yes, exactly.  24mm 2.8 stm was all we've got, and although that is a nice lens it's darker than f/4.0 in terms of full frame equivalence....

Not even 50 1.4 II.

Ohw yeah, only that awful mark middle ages one....   while everybody needed a good 50mm portrait prime on those crop DSLR's during the heyday of digital cameras Canon refused to make one.  The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art had AF problems on DSLRs, and the M5 and M6mkI had too big single AF points.  The M50 was the first Canon crop camera enabling you to shoot with a nice 80mm field of view, and the sigma 56mm f/1.4 did it at a much more compact size.

With the R10 or R7 it's either the mediocre RF 50mm f/1.8 stm or the heavy 50mm Art again. 50-100mm f/1.8 Art is another option, but that one is even heavier. R7 + f/1.2 L is possible too, but that's wasting a lot of very expensive glass on a too cheap sensor.

The same reason might also be true with RF-S 15mm because of RF 16 f/2.8 and RF-S 50/56mm because of RF 50mm 1.8. If it is the case, RFS bodies are only for backups or supplements for RF body users. The possible, best RFS lens would be 17-55 f/2.8, and that's it. No compelling primes.

Look, for the 11-22mm it's another story, that might happen.

But for a sigma RF-s 56mm f/1.4 it's the same story, as that one will compete too strong on crop with the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm. When Sigma brings out a lens like that for RF-s it will receive the same treatment as the Samyang RF 85mm f/1.4, Sigma knows this, so they won't even try. (Luckily my 50mm Art will do, and I've sold the ef-m 56mm f/1.4. )

Well, there's also the RF 16mm f/2.8 stm, and if you're getting the scheme you know how about the likelihood of a Sigma RF-s 16mm f/1.4. Absolute zero. The RF lens will be fine on crop, however, it's two full stops darker, so Canon is protecting a full frame RF 24mm f/2.0 here the didn't even develop yet.....

Right. The fact that the RF mount is closed only to Canon is so discouraging those who are eager to see another solution when Canon does not want to meet their needs.

Canon reproduces those in RFS mount? And what if Canon releases a compact RFS body?

You're left with RF full frame primes, still having slow stm AF, having darker apertures and performing worse on crop than the primes available ef-m, and, it this won't be temporarily, it will stay that bad until you pay the big bucks to go full frame.

It's Canon. We've seen these games before. Canon wants to have gaps between consumer and pro lenses. And Canon hates options like the Samyang RF 85mm f/1.4, Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4, Sigma 50&85&105mm f/1.4 Art without AF problems. For the R6II and R5II Canon might even remove the EF AF protocol from these cameras. Canon will do everything they can to let you pay the price of the monopoly RF lenses. Nothing wrong with that, but factor in those prices when going RF mount, even if it's just RF-s for now.

Let's see if Canon would cripple RFS bodies on purpose by just giving mediocre RFS lenses alone just as they did for EFS and EFM bodies. To be honest with you, it looks very likely.

yup

EFM 32mm and 11-22mm, which I love so much, are exceptional.

Enjoy it as long as we can!  The sensor of the M6II isn't outdated anytime soon, so we where just lucky getting our stuff during the era Canon was using mounts not being closed enough, as Canon simply made mistakes in the transition to mirrorless.