It’s like they trying to wipe the M6ii off the earth Locked

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

rz64 wrote:

If you want, you can permanently repeat "M is dead". However, this does not make any other system better.

Saying "M is alive" won't force Canon to release new M models.

I think it will officially be over if/when Canon releases an APS-C R that's priced like the M50.

I just wonder why some forists obviously think, that there is need for repeating (permanently) that "M is dead".

"If" Canon releases an APS-C R that's priced like the M50, what should be the reason for M-users to follow that path? For me, there would be none.
To my mind, Canon won't release RF-s lenses which are comparable to 11-22mm, 32mm, Sigma 16mm and 56mm. Why should they? They want you to upgrade to R and buy expensive R-lenses. So, there is no interest for Canon to offer competitive, small, inexpensive and even bright RF-s lenses.

For me, the M-system fits perfectly to my needs.

I just wonder why some forists obviously think, that there is need for repeating (permanently) that RF-S must directly duplicate EF-M.

The EF-M mount has never been a priority for Canon. In turn, converting EF-M system owners to RF-S or RF is also not a priority for Canon. Even with the broad success of the M50 and M50 II, the system has barely been an afterthought for Canon.

I don't know why some forists think, that RF-S must directly duplicate EF-M.

But what is the entry level for mirrorless in case of Canon? Actually, it is still EF-M. If EF-M vanishes, it must be replaced by RF-S. So that's the connection in between.

Yes, Canon needs an entry level RF-S solution, but entry level is typically a "new" user, and not someone upgrading to the Mark II version of the same body they already own.

But concerning the "duplication" I would see it in a different way. To my mind, RF-S cannot duplicate EF-M. Because the main properties of EF-M, which are
- small size and weight,

Current RF-S lenses are the same basic size and weight as the EF-M counterparts. The R10 is just a M5 with a slightly larger, more ergonomic grip and 2 grams of extra weight. There is very little practical difference between the two

- perfect system for walking and traveling,

That is completely subjective and depends on the user. There are still people using full frame cameras and f/2.8 zooms for travel. On the other end, m4/3 is very popular for travel with lenses like the excellent 12-100mm f/4.0 paired with some of the best IBIS in the industry and multi-shot modes that rival full frame image quality.

- "large" sensor in a small body,

RF-S sensor size is identical to EF-M sensor size

- good to very good IQ,

RF-S image sensors are the same, or better than what is available in EF-M

- pleasing color rendering,

RF-S is still a Canon system with typical Canon rendering.

- affordability,
cannot be found altogether in the R-system.

So, EF-M is a "unique stand-alone-system", which can coexist beside RF-S, but which cannot be duplicated or replaced by RF-S.

There is a disconnect in your, and other's arguments. There is a constant promotion of the M6 II and EF-M 32mm f/1.4 as small and high performance products that have no duplicate in the RF system. There is also the argument that RF-S does not match the small size, low weight, and low price of the M system needed for an entry level photographer. One of those arguments are the desires of the members of this forum and the other argument is what Canon needs for the current marketplace.  I am not discounting the performance capabilities of the M6II and EF-M 32mm f/1.4.  The disconnect comes with the reality that those are two niche, low volume products.

I completely agree that RF-S needs a body that is a bit smaller and a bit cheaper for the entry level, but that market was never served by the M6 II and EF-M 32mm f/1.4. For almost 5 years now, that market has clearly been served by the M50 and now M50 II in dual zoom lens kits. Canon will almost certainly replicate the successful M50 kits in RF-S guise, and all recent rumors point to that happening soon. The M50/M50 II kits check all of your bullet points above, and the RF-S version of the M50 will too.

Basically, the highest performance M gear and the most popular M gear are not the same thing.