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

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC 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.

My m32 f1.4 and my m11-22 and my m6II were "barely an afterthought"? The only afterthought with this is that they gave us way too much for the $ and will be sure not to do that again with RF-s

you have never used this great gear

Never used this gear? Too funny. I imported the 11-22mm from Henry's in Canada way back in 2013 because Canon did not bother to sell it in the USA until late in 2015.

I'm referring to modern day combos - not single components, When I read all of your early adoption negative posts, and move to Fuji, it occurs to me that you have never experienced the modern-day m or R combos:

32.5 mpxl m6II with RAW and DXO PL5/6 with the great 32 F1.4, 11-22, and 100L.

RP with my great RF 24-105 F4 L and RF 85 F2 IS

Nothing against any of that gear above, and I am glad it works for you, but all of it would be utterly worthless for my own needs.  I primarily shoot outdoor sports and action.  You primarily shoot indoor events.  A camera without a built in viewfinder or a camera that maxes out at 4fps with AF are complete non-starters for me.  In my three decades of photography, I have never once owned a 50mm equivalent prime.  I just don't personally like that focal length.  The 100mm f/2.8 is too short and/or too slow for my needs.  I don't often shoot in the 24-105mm range, and if I do, I want a smaller lens as there is a good chance I am using it for handheld video.  The 85mm f/2.0 is fine, but there are other lenses that I think have better rendering in a smaller and/or cheaper package.  Again, it's great you have a kit that works well for you, but nothing in your kit is any use to me.

The R3 and various RF L lenses get fantastic reviews, but they are still a terrible choice for snapshots of the kids.

I could go back and dis all the components of my old stuff or even the cameras themselves, but for me it is about going forward with the modern-day combos with the strategy of small, powerful, value propositions

for me, M did not make sense to buy prior to the m6II or M32 F1.4

for me, iphone didn't make great photos/videos for me until Apple 13/14

So I bought into M6II and Apple 13 for my photography that I'm now using at events (the Apple 13 for video clips).

I use my phone when I can, but my last few videos were shot at 200mm equivalent.

to each there own, but manufacturers need to take seriously small, powerful, value proposition or they'll be left in the dust

Phones are the "small and powerful" segment, and cameras like the M50/M50 II cover the "value" segment.