HaroldC3
Senior Member
More like the Rebel replacement. Looks like a T7 in rf mount to me.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Looks like the M's replacement series has arrived
- Thread starter Swervin Mervin
- Start date
KEG
Veteran Member
I have GoPro 10, Powershot SX60, Powershot G7 X II, Panasonic G3, M3, M6 mk I, M6 mk II and R and they are all capable of better results than my iPhone 12 promax:
- Real RAW with real details.
- In the case of GoPro 10, G7 X II (due to sony sensor), M6 I/II and R much better dynamic range
- Real zoom range
- Real shallow dof with the Powershots, M43 and EOSes.
- Interchangable lenses with the EOSes and M43.
- Interchangable batteries
- Interchangable storage
- Tripod mount
- Userfriendly buttons
KEG
Veteran Member
Z30 suddenly starts to look interesting.
it does, but for its functionality, not for being small. it does not have an EVF (nor the option to use an external one) but the rest of the body is as big as the Z50’s. To me, as long as one can afford it, the sweat spot in Canons new apsc line-up is the R10: fairly small, fast, new processor, grip, dials and joystick, etc.
--
https://vero.co/fjzk
Last edited:
This is what I see it as:
I always felt if this was all someone could afford to spend they were far better off getting an used version of almost anything else, at least they would not get so frustrated and disappointed they gave up photography with an ILC.
I always felt if this was all someone could afford to spend they were far better off getting an used version of almost anything else, at least they would not get so frustrated and disappointed they gave up photography with an ILC.
MyReality
Veteran Member
The same people will buy this that bought the M50, one of Canon's biggest sellers for blogging and overseas in white.
So far Canon has 5 budget R lenses. Throw in the EF-s lenses and you have a lot of choices.
So far Canon has 5 budget R lenses. Throw in the EF-s lenses and you have a lot of choices.
MyReality
Veteran Member
All true. I am looking at getting a G7 X or G9 X.
Last edited:
MyReality
Veteran Member
The M200 has a flawed program mode and not good video. I looked into getting one myself.
crashpc
Veteran Member
m100
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
Big reason I can put up with the small buttons on the M50 and R50 is because they have such good touchscreens.
--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
Last edited:
KEG
Veteran Member
The Ms, R and G7Xii all have touchscreen which more or less works the same way.
GoPro is waterproof, tiny and with 5.3K recording.
R is ff in magnesium weatherproof body.
G7 X II is about the size of a IXUS and easily fits in a pocket.
They're marketing this camera for first time camera users, enticing cellphone users to give this a chance. This camera is relatively bulky and no touchscreen, it is the total opposite of what they are used to. The amount of lens available don't really mean much to the newbies because most of them will be satisfied with the kits lens alone. Canon should have just updated the M200.
dan the man p
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,281
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,593
No touchscreen either.
Edit: Already mentioned a couple times. But yeah, I can't imagine what Canon was thinking leaving that out. Their target market for this camera is going to want a touchscreen, and the excellent touch interface has been one of Canon's strong points since the original M. Does it really save that much to not include it?
Last edited:
davesurrey
Senior Member
Let me start by saying that I don’t have any dog in this race. Over the years I’ve had Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Casio digital cameras, from MILC, DSLR, MFT, one-inch and compact and been happy with most of them, as I understand and accept they all have compromises.
But what it appears to me is that there is currently a large disconnect between what is good for Canon as a company and what is good for Canon’s customers. It just could be that the R100 will sell in bucket loads but the smart phone competitors will make this a harder goal to achieve than ever before, given some of the spec lacking in the R100.
IMO the EOS-M series had a great many things going for it. Small, lightweight and low cost it had a lot of appeal and that appeal would have been a lot greater if Canon had made a positive commitment to it with more lenses (such as the ones where other manufactures filled the gap) and more with IS plus bodies such as an M5ii with IBIS. But no, they abandoned it.
One has to ask why they did such a thing only to invest money in a (so far sparse) line-up of RF-S bodies and lenses, in many ways paralleling what M-mount offered. If it were in the hope that folk would buy RF-S and then upgrade to RF full frame then surely their experience with EF and EF-S would have told them that this didn’t happen so often. And I see little chance that a range of RF-S cameras and lenses will be as attractive as the M-mount are/were.
So it may seem beneficial to Canon to have a range of R mount lenses (RF and RF-S) but this is at the expense of customers, many of which might have preferred M-mount.
My personal journey has been to leave DSLR and MFT and build up an M-mount system, which I find incredible value for money. I have an R7 simply for air-shows with a Canon 100-400Lii but I doubt I will buy into the R mount range, and certainly not into RF-S.
YMMV as they say.
But what it appears to me is that there is currently a large disconnect between what is good for Canon as a company and what is good for Canon’s customers. It just could be that the R100 will sell in bucket loads but the smart phone competitors will make this a harder goal to achieve than ever before, given some of the spec lacking in the R100.
IMO the EOS-M series had a great many things going for it. Small, lightweight and low cost it had a lot of appeal and that appeal would have been a lot greater if Canon had made a positive commitment to it with more lenses (such as the ones where other manufactures filled the gap) and more with IS plus bodies such as an M5ii with IBIS. But no, they abandoned it.
One has to ask why they did such a thing only to invest money in a (so far sparse) line-up of RF-S bodies and lenses, in many ways paralleling what M-mount offered. If it were in the hope that folk would buy RF-S and then upgrade to RF full frame then surely their experience with EF and EF-S would have told them that this didn’t happen so often. And I see little chance that a range of RF-S cameras and lenses will be as attractive as the M-mount are/were.
So it may seem beneficial to Canon to have a range of R mount lenses (RF and RF-S) but this is at the expense of customers, many of which might have preferred M-mount.
My personal journey has been to leave DSLR and MFT and build up an M-mount system, which I find incredible value for money. I have an R7 simply for air-shows with a Canon 100-400Lii but I doubt I will buy into the R mount range, and certainly not into RF-S.
YMMV as they say.
crashpc
Veteran Member
Indeed, except for possible upgrade path issues, they would be better of with APS-C M system and FF R system.
davesurrey
Senior Member
Only time will tell but my guess is that Canon might have been better off with an expanded M-mount line-up for APS-C and R-mount for top end Full Frame.
Fuji seem quite happy with their APS-C line-up that has no upgrade path to their Medium Format gear.
We'll never know.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,315
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
The R100 is the replacement for the 4000D - it's actually quite an upgrade, with its 24Mpx DPAF sensor, its hotshoe central flash contact and its metal bayonet. While it's just about the size and weight of the M50 II, I don't think Canon have produced an RF-S mount successor to any of the M series. Your R7 is the spiritual successor to the 7D II.
The EVF hump of the M5 and either M50 put me off - the camera won't go into a trouser pocket yet the EVF was too small to be pleasant to use. Adding IBIS to the M series would have made the body too big for my purposes as well, though it would have been useful with my Samyang prime lenses. The big problem with EOS M is that for the last ten years people have been saying it's doomed. Then when Canon introduced RF mount, saying it was optimised for full-frame just as EF-M was optimised for APS-C, there was a huge chorus here about how Canon should have a unified mount just like everybody else. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
I don't think that the RF-S lineup will be as extensive as the EF-M (more bodies than lenses) lineup for many years, just because of that compatibility with RF mount. Nobody ever bought an EF-M lens with half a thought to using it on FF, so it makes sense to some people to buy that 32mm f/1.4 standard lens for more than double the price of its slightly inferior FF RF equivalent. This week's announcement of the RF 28mm lens has kicked an RF-S 32mm f/1.4 a long way down the road of not into the long grass. Theoretically you could still use APS-C lenses on FF, but with an automatic crop, a bigger camera and poorer quality than the camera you were upgrading from, why would you bother?
EOS M's attraction for me (and I think this was Canon's original intention back in 2012) is as a complementary camera to my FF outfit. Unfortunately what the market says it wants is low f/numbers, EVFs, IBIS and ambitious lenses, none of which go with small, lightweight and low cost. So small cameras have got bigger and you can't even buy a new m4/3 camera that's as small as my M100.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum