M6 II - A camera before it's time?

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m

I debated buying into this system but Fuji came along with one of their occasional too good to pass by offers. People I knew with EOS-M all praised it.

EOS-M was ahead of its time in the sense that the rise of full frame mirrorless and the optical advantages of a big lens mount were over the horizon. If these had been foreseen I imagine that the lens mount would have been made to fit those needs and we'd be seeing it as the only Canon mount and Canon would have been into full frame mirrorless sooner and perhaps Sony less sucessful.

"Seriously, what's the catch?"

All I can think is it didn't fit nicely into how Canon saw how customers/sales matched up to the line of upcoming mirrorless cameras they had planned and how people would buy a less expensive camera to start, then upgrade to better cameras later. It is a seriously good camera and fun to use.

MAC said:

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m

Click to expand...

Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Lens Review

IQ of m32 f1.4 = "It always helps to compare a lens against one of the best to know how well it really performs. The Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Lens vs. Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Lens comparison is quite revealing. In that comparison link, I selected f/1.4 for the 32mm lens and stopped the impressive-performing 200mm L lens down to f/4 to illustrate how good the 32mm lens really is. I see a slight contrast difference in this comparison, but there is little resolution difference and both lenses equalized at f/4 shows the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens performing similarly to a lens costing over 12 times more."

note: Canon has not re-released the 32 f1.4 for RF-s mount - because it is a self - cannibalizing lens for their FF stuff since it is outstanding FF equivalent of 50 F2.2 that is sharp across the frame on par with a 200 mm f2 in IQ.

I also use my EF 100 L IS with my m6II for great 160 mm FOV MACROS - a great working FOV with the 32.5 mpxl sensor.

MAC said:

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as too good. It was excellent, but a little bigger than I would have liked and cost more than double what I was prepared to pay for APS-C. It's such a sought-after camera that its second-hand value is similar to that of a second-hand 5Ds, but that's due to scarcity because it didn't sell well enough to be hugely profitable at the time

MAC said:

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

Click to expand...

Still available from the R7 with IBIS thrown in. But the R7 is too big and expensive for general purpose APS-C for me because I don't photograph birds. It's bigger and heavier than the full-frame R8 which I bought new at a huge discount that brought it down to the price of an R10.

MAC said:

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

Click to expand...

These three, along with the 28mm were the great EF-M lenses. The 22mm is tiny and sharp but my 11-22mm gets far more use because of the versatility of the zoom and its stabilisation. The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from). Canon could sell that lens quite readily as it would only mount on the M series cameras, but the M6 II with that lens mounted is slightly heavier than the R8 plus RF 50mm f/1.8. I suspect the price and size of that lens is more of a reason why Canon haven't posted it over to RF than its quality.

MAC said:

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m.

Click to expand...

From the Kolari strip down of the R7

This photo shows how much Canon's IBIS mechanism adds to the size of the M6 II / R7 sensor. It just wouldn't fit in an M6 sized body. Apart from the lens mount the R7 pretty well is what I'd expect for an M5 II with IBIS and Digic X.

Sittatunga said:

MAC said:

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as too good.

Click to expand...

my point was Canon isn't going to release too good, excellent, whatever each of us tries to call it again because they determined they can make more money by not releasing such stuff for value pricing

Sittatunga said:

It was excellent, but a little bigger than I would have liked and cost more than double what I was prepared to pay for APS-C. It's such a sought-after camera that its second-hand value is similar to that of a second-hand 5Ds, but that's due to scarcity because it didn't sell well enough to be hugely profitable at the time

Click to expand...

M6II = 5Ds in pricing today says it all in terms of "too good" for what Canon intended to happen... so they killed it

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

Click to expand...

Still available from the R7 with IBIS thrown in. But the R7 is too big and expensive for general purpose APS-C for me because I don't photograph birds. It's bigger and heavier than the full-frame R8 which I bought new at a huge discount that brought it down to the price of an R10.

Click to expand...

agree, R7 is for sports/wildlife reach and too big for what we want - I too went R8

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

Click to expand...

These three, along with the 28mm were the great EF-M lenses. The 22mm is tiny and sharp but my 11-22mm gets far more use because of the versatility of the zoom and its stabilisation.

Click to expand...

I skipped the 22 for this very reason

Sittatunga said:

The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from).

Click to expand...

here is where we have disagreement

folks pay a lot of money for a sharp F2 at the portrait FOV of 50mm. In the case of the m32 F1.4, unlike other alternatives, this lens has great sharpness across the frame wide open. For the Canon F1.8's, and I had 3 of them, and also the old 50 f1.4, I had to stop down to f2.8 to get enough sharpness across the frame for me.

Sittatunga said:

Canon could sell that lens quite readily as it would only mount on the M series cameras, but the M6 II with that lens mounted is slightly heavier than the R8 plus RF 50mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

maybe so, but for my reasons above, the m 32 f1.4 on 32.5 mp m6II, is my 50 fov setup

Sittatunga said:

I suspect the price and size of that lens is more of a reason why Canon haven't posted it over to RF than its quality.

Click to expand...

no, they don't want cannibalization of their higher priced 50 fovs

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m.

Click to expand...

From the Kolari strip down of the R7

This photo shows how much Canon's IBIS mechanism adds to the size of the M6 II / R7 sensor. It just wouldn't fit in an M6 sized body. Apart from the lens mount the R7 pretty well is what I'd expect for an M5 II with IBIS and Digic X.

Click to expand...

the RF mount was bigger than the m mount.

Both Fuji and Sony have shown they can produce small bodies with IBIS. We shouldn't use the R7 and R6II as the models to say this is the smallest IBIS bodies can go

MAC said:

Sittatunga said:

MAC said:

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as too good.

Click to expand...

my point was Canon isn't going to release too good, excellent, whatever each of us tries to call it again because they determined they can make more money by not releasing such stuff for value pricing

Click to expand...

If that were true, them Canon wouldn't have released the R8 or the AE-1. Their APS-C cameras don't compete against full-frame on quality and, if anything, they complement their full-frame stuff and encourage customers to stay within the system. Not making their APS-C products as good as possible for the price just opens the market to Fuji, Nikon and Sony or even micro four-thirds. Personally, because I've got (second-hand lenses) going back to the dawn of the EOS system, I looked at the M6 and M6 II and felt that full-frame offered better value for money.

MAC said:

MAC said:

It was excellent, but a little bigger than I would have liked and cost more than double what I was prepared to pay for APS-C. It's such a sought-after camera that its second-hand value is similar to that of a second-hand 5Ds, but that's due to scarcity because it didn't sell well enough to be hugely profitable at the time

Click to expand...

M6II = 5Ds in pricing today says it all in terms of "too good" for what Canon intended to happen... so they killed it

Click to expand...

No, what it says is that not enough people saw its merits to buy it new for there to be enough second-hand cameras for the current demand. The 5Ds was a super camera that everybody asked for but it ended up in a fire sale as the warehouses were too full of them, while Canon managed produce the M6 II in just sufficient numbers to meet demand.

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

Click to expand...

Still available from the R7 with IBIS thrown in. But the R7 is too big and expensive for general purpose APS-C for me because I don't photograph birds. It's bigger and heavier than the full-frame R8 which I bought new at a huge discount that brought it down to the price of an R10.

Click to expand...

agree, R7 is for sports/wildlife reach and too big for what we want - I too went R8

Click to expand...

The R8 is that size because it doesn't have IBIS.

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

Click to expand...

These three, along with the 28mm were the great EF-M lenses. The 22mm is tiny and sharp but my 11-22mm gets far more use because of the versatility of the zoom and its stabilisation.

Click to expand...

I skipped the 22 for this very reason

MAC said:

The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from).

Click to expand...

here is where we have disagreement

folks pay a lot of money for a sharp F2 at the portrait FOV of 50mm. In the case of the m32 F1.4, unlike other alternatives, this lens has great sharpness across the frame wide open. For the Canon F1.8's, and I had 3 of them, and also the old 50 f1.4, I had to stop down to f2.8 to get enough sharpness across the frame for me.

Click to expand...

That's effectively half a stop slower than the 32mm, which is equivalent to 50mm f/2.3. The EF-M lens is bigger and better and twice the price and that's worth it for some people. I'm not sure it's enough people to make it profitable to port it over from EF-M to RF-S though.

MAC said:

MAC said:

Canon could sell that lens quite readily as it would only mount on the M series cameras, but the M6 II with that lens mounted is slightly heavier than the R8 plus RF 50mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

maybe so, but for my reasons above, the m 32 f1.4 on 32.5 mp m6II, is my 50 fov setup

Click to expand...

That's great if you enjoy that field of view.

MAC said:

MAC said:

I suspect the price and size of that lens is more of a reason why Canon haven't posted it over to RF than its quality.

Click to expand...

no, they don't want cannibalization of their higher priced 50 fovs

Click to expand...

Not going to happen. Perfectionists might buy a £440 32mm RF-S lens instead of a £200 50mm RF lens (and Canon would love them for doing that), but if you're running APS-C alongside full-frame, that 50mm becomes an 80mm equivalent when used on the smaller format but that 32mm just loses you nearly ⅔ of the pixels of the larger sensor because of the additional crop to APS-C. A 50mm f/2.3 equivalent is surely not going to cannibalise sales of real 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses.

MAC said:

MAC said:

MAC said:

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m.

Click to expand...

From the Kolari strip down of the R7

This photo shows how much Canon's IBIS mechanism adds to the size of the M6 II / R7 sensor. It just wouldn't fit in an M6 sized body. Apart from the lens mount the R7 pretty well is what I'd expect for an M5 II with IBIS and Digic X.

Click to expand...

the RF mount was bigger than the m mount.

Both Fuji and Sony have shown they can produce small bodies with IBIS. We shouldn't use the R7 and R6II as the models to say this is the smallest IBIS bodies can go

Click to expand...

Scaling of the photo, the IBIS adds about 22mm (½") to the height of the sensor assembly and a little less to its length. Ok, that's Canon's first generation IBIS and it could be smaller if they made it less powerful, but the throat diameter of the RF mount is only 7mm wider than that of EF-M.

Sittatunga said:

MAC said:

Sittatunga said:

MAC said:

noggin2k1 said:

I recently got offered a brand new M6 II with kit lens for a ridiculously low price, which got my having a little look at the EF-M line ups. I've always typically shot 35mm and 50mm, so with the stellar options available, thought I'd pick it all up as a "something to have a bit of fun with" camera.

Whilst I've only been testing so far, I can help but think, this camera was surely ahead of its time? And Canon were just a handful of decent lenses away from hitting a home run.

It's a perfect compact size, with better autofocus than anything Fuji has to offer, along with gorgeous RAW files to play with. Seriously, what's the catch?

Give me a compact f2.8 zoom (equivalent to Sony 24-50/2.8) and a handful of other options, and it'd literally be the perfect leisure setup for me.

Glad I've snapped one up, but can't help but think "what could have been" if Canon had just developed a little more...

Click to expand...

you are right, they deep six'd it because it was too good, for not enough profits, so they wanted to make more money

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as too good.

Click to expand...

my point was Canon isn't going to release too good, excellent, whatever each of us tries to call it again because they determined they can make more money by not releasing such stuff for value pricing

Click to expand...

If that were true, them Canon wouldn't have released the R8

Click to expand...

the R8 fell right into their FF profit strategy

the R8 was the key for me to consider body first over lens. before the R8 it was the opposite

Sittatunga said:

or the AE-1. Their APS-C cameras don't compete against full-frame on quality

Click to expand...

R7 + RF-s 17-40 does

Sittatunga said:

and, if anything, they complement their full-frame stuff and encourage customers to stay within the system.

Click to expand...

for birds and field sports needing reach, ok

Sittatunga said:

Not making their APS-C products as good as possible for the price just opens the market to Fuji, Nikon and Sony or even micro four-thirds.

Click to expand...

canon's normal range apsc is in a different lower market

you'll not get RF-s 32 f1.4

Sittatunga said:

Personally, because I've got (second-hand lenses) going back to the dawn of the EOS system, I looked at the M6 and M6 II and felt that full-frame offered better value for money.

Click to expand...

because they aren't developing great RF-s stuff for apsc

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

It was excellent, but a little bigger than I would have liked and cost more than double what I was prepared to pay for APS-C. It's such a sought-after camera that its second-hand value is similar to that of a second-hand 5Ds, but that's due to scarcity because it didn't sell well enough to be hugely profitable at the time

Click to expand...

M6II = 5Ds in pricing today says it all in terms of "too good" for what Canon intended to happen... so they killed it

Click to expand...

No, what it says is that not enough people saw its merits to buy it new for there to be enough second-hand cameras for the current demand. The 5Ds was a super camera that everybody asked for but it ended up in a fire sale as the warehouses were too full of them, while Canon managed produce the M6 II in just sufficient numbers to meet demand.

Click to expand...

interesting, but the original retail prices were worlds apart

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

the 32.5 mpxl files are gorgeous

Click to expand...

Still available from the R7 with IBIS thrown in. But the R7 is too big and expensive for general purpose APS-C for me because I don't photograph birds. It's bigger and heavier than the full-frame R8 which I bought new at a huge discount that brought it down to the price of an R10.

Click to expand...

agree, R7 is for sports/wildlife reach and too big for what we want - I too went R8

Click to expand...

The R8 is that size because it doesn't have IBIS.

Click to expand...

the R7 isn't the model of the smallest ibis can get

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

your 22 and and particularly the 32 are great lenses

I have the 11-22 which I really like

Click to expand...

These three, along with the 28mm were the great EF-M lenses. The 22mm is tiny and sharp but my 11-22mm gets far more use because of the versatility of the zoom and its stabilisation.

Click to expand...

I skipped the 22 for this very reason

Sittatunga said:

The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from).

Click to expand...

here is where we have disagreement

folks pay a lot of money for a sharp F2 at the portrait FOV of 50mm. In the case of the m32 F1.4, unlike other alternatives, this lens has great sharpness across the frame wide open. For the Canon F1.8's, and I had 3 of them, and also the old 50 f1.4, I had to stop down to f2.8 to get enough sharpness across the frame for me.

Click to expand...

That's effectively half a stop slower than the 32mm, which is equivalent to 50mm f/2.3.

Click to expand...

f2.2

Sittatunga said:

The EF-M lens is bigger and better and twice the price and that's worth it for some people. I'm not sure it's enough people to make it profitable to port it over from EF-M to RF-S though.

Click to expand...

canon never gave us the EF 50 F2 IS

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Canon could sell that lens quite readily as it would only mount on the M series cameras, but the M6 II with that lens mounted is slightly heavier than the R8 plus RF 50mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

maybe so, but for my reasons above, the m 32 f1.4 on 32.5 mp m6II, is my 50 fov setup

Click to expand...

That's great if you enjoy that field of view.

Click to expand...

I do

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

I suspect the price and size of that lens is more of a reason why Canon haven't posted it over to RF than its quality.

Click to expand...

no, they don't want cannibalization of their higher priced 50 fovs

Click to expand...

Not going to happen. Perfectionists might buy a £440 32mm RF-S lens instead of a £200 50mm RF lens (and Canon would love them for doing that), but if you're running APS-C alongside full-frame, that 50mm becomes an 80mm equivalent when used on the smaller format but that 32mm just loses you nearly ⅔ of the pixels of the larger sensor because of the additional crop to APS-C. A 50mm f/2.3 equivalent is surely not going to cannibalise sales of real 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses.

Click to expand...

I think great small apsc can cannibalize FF - if they build it - which their FF cash cow strategy says no

btw - I look at multiple small apsc prime setups as potentially cannibalizing zooms

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

the other gem is the siggy 56 f1.4

if they had done an m5II with IBIS and digic 10 - folks would be buying like crazy -and they needed a good normal f2.8 zoom though the siggy 18-50 would have come along for m.

Click to expand...

From the Kolari strip down of the R7

This photo shows how much Canon's IBIS mechanism adds to the size of the M6 II / R7 sensor. It just wouldn't fit in an M6 sized body. Apart from the lens mount the R7 pretty well is what I'd expect for an M5 II with IBIS and Digic X.

Click to expand...

the RF mount was bigger than the m mount.

Both Fuji and Sony have shown they can produce small bodies with IBIS. We shouldn't use the R7 and R6II as the models to say this is the smallest IBIS bodies can go

Click to expand...

Scaling of the photo, the IBIS adds about 22mm (½") to the height of the sensor assembly and a little less to its length. Ok, that's Canon's first generation IBIS and it could be smaller if they made it less powerful,

Click to expand...

technology advances where less transforms into more

Sittatunga said:

but the throat diameter of the RF mount is only 7mm wider than that of EF-M.

Click to expand...

so make an R-M6II please

Sittatunga said:

Scaling of the photo, the IBIS adds about 22mm (½") to the height of the sensor assembly and a little less to its length. Ok, that's Canon's first generation IBIS and it could be smaller if they made it less powerful, but the throat diameter of the RF mount is only 7mm wider than that of EF-M.

Click to expand...

There are loads of patents out there pertaining to IBIS. Since Canon was last to the party with IBIS, they likely face more impediments than anyone else in designing a compact IBIS system.

Cameras without EVF's were very common in the early days of mirrorless as manufacturers were competing to build the smallest possible cameras. This was back when mirrorless AF was terrible and the only reason to buy these cameras was the miniscule size. Performance has improved greatly since then and mirrorless is now mainstream. While there are still a few people who want a really small camera, most people focus on overall capabilities, and cameras with built-in EVF's are far and away more popular.

Canon discontinued the M system because standardizing on a single mount was the best long term business strategy. Due to choices made in the initial design of the EF-M mount, it was unsuitable for full frame use and could not be Canon's standardized mount for the future. Design of the RF mount would have begun at least 3 years before the M6 II was released. It would not have made sense for Canon to develop f/2.8 zooms or a higher end body with IBIS when they knew they would be discontinuing the M system a few years later. Those resources were better spent on building out the R system.

“Those images are simply fantastic.”

“Well, thanks. Have to admit it is a fantastic camera. About as small as they go for a camera with IBIS. Decent glass for great resolution, although a bit pricey. But that’s the way things are if you want to show the world, eyewatering resolution and detail. By the way. What are you viewing the images on? Did you finally go for that new 32” monitor you were harping on about?”

“Nah! Decided not to bother. Like most people these days, I’m viewing shots on my mobile with the 5” screen.”

:-D

Collecting your responses together you would appear to be saying

MAC said:

1. To maximise profits, Canon are avoiding expensive APS-C in favour of full-format cameras.

Click to expand...

I personally find that with equivalent lenses, budget full-frame offers better value than expensive APS-C. Expensive APS-C will have better profit margins than budget full-frame if it sells in the same numbers.

MAC said:

2. The R7 + the Sigma 17-40mm zoom competes on quality with full-frame.

Click to expand...

I can't check this myself, but it's a bigger and heavier outfit than the equivalent R8 + RF 28-70mm f/2.8 kit. It's a far cry from EOS M though. The Sigma lens earns Canon a moderate licence fee as it's the same price here as the E mount version. Canon would obviously prefer to sell us one of their own but, Canon having only ever made one APS-C f/2.8 zoom, I can't see them producing another one soon, hence the Sigma licence. I wouldn't buy a zoom lens in that focal length range anyway or an APS-C camera bigger and heavier than my R8.

MAC said:

3. You'll not get RF-s 32mm f/1.4 (because they aren't developing great RF-s stuff for APS-C).

Click to expand...

I agree. The 32mm can't compete at double the price of the smaller RF 50mm f/1.8. Canon appear to have given up on large APS-C lenses. I think that's more to do to do with the difficulty of selling them against the budget RF lenses than to worries about them taking sales from the L series; you don't agree.

MAC said:

MAC said:

4. That's (f/2.8) effectively half a stop slower than the 32mm, which is equivalent to 50mm f/2.3.

Click to expand...

f2.2

Click to expand...

Let's split hairs properly. According to https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ample02P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis the EF-M 32mm lens is f/1.45. The crop factor isn't exactly 1.6, it's (24/14.8) going by the short sides of the sensors. 1.45(24/14.8) = 2.351 so I should have said f/2.4.

MAC said:

5. I think great small apsc can cannibalize FF - if they build it - which their FF cash cow strategy says no

Click to expand...

Judging by Canon's mirrorless history I'd say the cannibalisation would be the other way around.

MAC said:

6. btw - I look at multiple small apsc prime setups as potentially cannibalizing zooms

Click to expand...

And yet we both prefer the EF-M 11-22mm to the EF-M 22mm.

MAC said:

7. technology advances where less transforms into more

Click to expand...

?

1. As nnovak has pointed out, Canon's IBIS is constrained by other companies' patents. I would have thought that, having repeatedly said for so long that ILIS is better than IBIS, Canon can't afford to produce second-rate or inordinately expensive IBIS. The second generation probably won't add all that extra 12mm to the size of the sensor assembly but there has to be a size and weight (and cost) penalty for IBIS. Remember the general rule that out of small, good and cheap you can have any two.

MAC said:

8. so make an R-M6II please

Click to expand...

That would be too big and expensive for me, particularly if it had the IBIS you want in order to get the best out of those Sigma lenses. The EF-M lenses were 61mm diameter, the smallest RF and RF-S lenses are 69mm, so IBIS would add about as much to the body size as the difference in the mounts or the market's preference for a built-in EVF. I would be more interested in an RF-S mount M100, but not before my M bodies become paperweights.

Sittatunga said:

Collecting your responses together you would appear to be saying

Click to expand...

you make some good points, though the details vary somewhat from my viewpoints

Sittatunga said:

MAC said:

1. To maximise profits, Canon are avoiding expensive APS-C in favour of full-format cameras.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

agree - Canon's model for most of its profits and success is FF - not expensive APSC -with the exception of the R7 with long Tele's for extra reach for wildlife and field sports which generates good profits when they sell the long pro lenses

Sittatunga said:

I personally find that with equivalent lenses, budget full-frame offers better value than expensive APS-C. Expensive APS-C will have better profit margins than budget full-frame if it sells in the same numbers.

Click to expand...

though I'll miss my small m6II + 32 f1.4 wide open and 11-22 when it breaks, I agree with you on new stuff for me being centered around budget FF

Heck for reach, I even got a $499 800mm canon refurb with my R8

my issue is I still want as small as possible and budget friendly as possible - but I don't like Canon's new budget apsc stuff.

I know Canon could have done better than fuji on an X-E5 type camera - but they seem to avoid this category in favor of their budget FF stuff

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

2. The R7 + the Sigma 17-40mm zoom competes on quality with full-frame.

Click to expand...

I can't check this myself, but it's a bigger and heavier outfit than the equivalent R8 + RF 28-70mm f/2.8 kit. It's a far cry from EOS M though. The Sigma lens earns Canon a moderate licence fee as it's the same price here as the E mount version. Canon would obviously prefer to sell us one of their own but, Canon having only ever made one APS-C f/2.8 zoom, I can't see them producing another one soon, hence the Sigma licence. I wouldn't buy a zoom lens in that focal length range anyway or an APS-C camera bigger and heavier than my R8.

Click to expand...

you are right about this, why bother when you can get an RF 28-70 f2.8 that has IS and is lighter than the sigma that doesn't have IS -- Canon did a great job on that mid range light weight lens

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

3. You'll not get RF-s 32mm f/1.4 (because they aren't developing great RF-s stuff for APS-C).

Click to expand...

I agree. The 32mm can't compete at double the price of the smaller RF 50mm f/1.8.

Click to expand...

maybe for some, but I was willing to pay more for 32 f1.4 for the wide-open utility

Sittatunga said:

Canon appear to have given up on large APS-C lenses. I think that's more to do to do with the difficulty of selling them against the budget RF lenses than to worries about them taking sales from the L series; you don't agree.

Click to expand...

they are not likely to innovate in the near future on small and great in the apsc category

maybe there is logic. I love my 48 mpxl iphone 16 pro @ 13 mm and 24 mm

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

4. That's (f/2.8) effectively half a stop slower than the 32mm, which is equivalent to 50mm f/2.3.

Click to expand...

f2.2

Click to expand...

Let's split hairs properly. According to https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ample02P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis the EF-M 32mm lens is f/1.45. The crop factor isn't exactly 1.6, it's (24/14.8) going by the short sides of the sensors. 1.45(24/14.8) = 2.351 so I should have said f/2.4.

Click to expand...

I just use the calculation 1.6 x 1.4 = 2.2

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

5. I think great small apsc can cannibalize FF - if they build it - which their FF cash cow strategy says no

Click to expand...

Judging by Canon's mirrorless history I'd say the cannibalisation would be the other way around.

Click to expand...

I'd just like Canon to do a small X-E5 type of apsc camera with f2 interchangeable pancake lenses and retro syle 3 dials

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

6. btw - I look at multiple small apsc prime setups as potentially cannibalizing zooms

Click to expand...

And yet we both prefer the EF-M 11-22mm to the EF-M 22mm.

Click to expand...

if canon did the right camera, I'd be all over a RF-s 22 f2 and RF-s 32 f1.4 lens

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

7. technology advances where less transforms into more

Click to expand...

?

1. As nnovak has pointed out, Canon's IBIS is constrained by other companies' patents. I would have thought that, having repeatedly said for so long that ILIS is better than IBIS, Canon can't afford to produce second-rate or inordinately expensive IBIS. The second generation probably won't add all that extra 12mm to the size of the sensor assembly but there has to be a size and weight (and cost) penalty for IBIS. Remember the general rule that out of small, good and cheap you can have any two.

Click to expand...

ahh, patents - maybe that is why Canon is stuck large

Sittatunga said:

Sittatunga said:

8. so make an R-M6II please

Click to expand...

That would be too big and expensive for me, particularly if it had the IBIS you want in order to get the best out of those Sigma lenses. The EF-M lenses were 61mm diameter, the smallest RF and RF-S lenses are 69mm, so IBIS would add about as much to the body size as the difference in the mounts or the market's preference for a built-in EVF. I would be more interested in an RF-S mount M100, but not before my M bodies become paperweights.

Click to expand...

two lenses - RF-s 22 f2 and RF-s 32 f1.4 lens and if Canon did a X-E5 type of knock your socks off camera - I'd be all over it

The newest and shiniest isn't always the best, as the M6 II has shown time and time again, year after year...

M4Mobility said:

The newest and shiniest isn't always the best, as the M6 II has shown time and time again, year after year...

Click to expand...

true, but under certain operating constraints

as pro R2D2 says, he uses spot focus since this is older digic 8 - and hardly ever misses with spot focus - me also on spot focus

the e-shutter is single shot but does ss 1/16000 - comes in handy

for some, shutter shock with mechanical shutter at slower shutter speeds has been reported - ss 60-100 - I use workarounds to avoid

MAC said:

M4Mobility said:

The newest and shiniest isn't always the best, as the M6 II has shown time and time again, year after year...

Click to expand...

true, but under certain operating constraints

as pro R2D2 says, he uses spot focus since this is older digic 8 - and hardly ever misses with spot focus - me also on spot focus

the e-shutter is single shot but does ss 1/16000 - comes in handy

for some, shutter shock with mechanical shutter at slower shutter speeds has been reported - ss 60-100 - I use workarounds to avoid

Click to expand...

Shutter shock I have never seen with this camera and therefor never tried to avoid.

I agree with the rest.

+ It has a tilt screen.

--
- M4M

M4Mobility said:

MAC said:

M4Mobility said:

The newest and shiniest isn't always the best, as the M6 II has shown time and time again, year after year...

Click to expand...

true, but under certain operating constraints

as pro R2D2 says, he uses spot focus since this is older digic 8 - and hardly ever misses with spot focus - me also on spot focus

the e-shutter is single shot but does ss 1/16000 - comes in handy

for some, shutter shock with mechanical shutter at slower shutter speeds has been reported - ss 60-100 - I use workarounds to avoid

Click to expand...

Shutter shock I have never seen with this camera and therefor never tried to avoid.

I agree with the rest.

+ It has a tilt screen.

Click to expand...

I don't see shutter shock either with my 11-22 and 32. I did see some with my 55-250

+100 on the tilt screen

Sittatunga said:

The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from).

Click to expand...

It's a little heavy and expensive because it's solid glass inside. For a normal lens it has an enormous number of lens elements, and as a result it's very, very sharp, even wide open. I've used it at night, and it's great. (The RF 50/1.8 probably competes with it, though.)

ThrillaMozilla said:

Sittatunga said:

The 32mm has a wonderful reputation but it was bigger, heavier and more than twice the price of its full-frame RF equivalent (and more than four times the price of the EF lens I haven't bothered upgrading from).

Click to expand...

It's a little heavy and expensive because it's solid glass inside. For a normal lens it has an enormous number of lens elements, and as a result it's very, very sharp, even wide open. I've used it at night, and it's great.

(The RF 50/1.8 probably competes with it, though.)

Click to expand...

years ago I asked a pro photographer why they have a 50 f1.8 but never use it

answer I got was why bother with a prime where they had to stop down to f2.8 when they could use their normal f2.8 zoom instead

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

the wide-open performance of the 32 f1.4 is the reason to get it