What impact does the Canon EOS R system have on your future M system purchases?

No text.

No impact.

I’m a multi-system shooter and will continue to use each to its strengths (and the best of my abilities).  Having an R System out there simply means more choices.

I hope to purchase an RP (or better) in the future, but that doesn’t suddenly make the entire M System obsolete when I do.  I’ll still love the M System for its unique combination of capabilities and form factor.

R2

No impact at all. All these R posts in the M forum just makes me appreciate and love my M cameras even more. Thank you.

No impact.  At all.
.
Even though we don't "need" it, Just wait until those new IBIS models come along!  That's probably when I'll take a moment to upgrade.  And at the pace Canon is now working at, it may be far sooner than later.  What a time to be alive!

Zero impact.   In fact, I’m ordering the EF-M 28mm f3.5 Macro this weekend as that’s the only M lens I don’t have.   It’s $50 off right now, which is just a part of the normal Canon sales cycle.    I am keenly interested I the M5 Mk2 when it arrives and I’m much more likely to pick that up as a second body verses diving into the R system.

No impact.

I purchased the M system because it offered excellent portability in a small light weight package. I've come to realize that APC-C is the sweet spot for IQ, size, and value. If the M didn't exist, my next choice would have been a high end Powershot, M43, or perhaps a Fuji APS-C system.

I lost my interest in photography a dozen years ago because of DSLR bulk. My smartphone brought that interest back with its ease of use and portability. After realizing I wanted something better IQ wise, the M system has been an acceptable compromise. I can see myself using this system for many, many years.

In the end, size matters. The benchmark for me is being able to fit the camera and 3-4 lenses in a small bag. The R system brings back the size and bulk of a DSLR, therefore I have no interest in purchasing.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

i have given it a little thought ..as the RP is in between the M5 and SL2/100D size wize  ......the size of the body is fine for the extra sensor you are getting ...and i know lenses that give the same  or equivalent DOF and FOV are the same size across formats   in fact often m43 lenses are sometimes bigger than they should be ...probably as you can only make AF motors  ETC so small without lots of R&D cost .....at the moment there is not a FF lenses anywhere near the size of the  of the  M 11-22 and it probably will never happen because of marketing but a  full frame 17-35mm F6.3 -F8.4 will be the same size ...but it will never happen as who will buy  slow a F8.4....but in reality that's what the 11-22 is

73Instamatic wrote:

I'll probably get the RP.

I don't care about the size of the lenses, and have deliberately bought all EF glass instead of EF-M for the very possibility of an FF upgrade (85mm below). Basically the RP has my name all over it. I suspect that if it were available last spring I would have bought it instead of the M50.

However, I'm in no rush. So no major purchase at this time.

I've got a trip to Disney World planned for September, and that pretty much used up my discretionary spending for 2019. But ... Trust me when I say, I was reallyclose to spending it on myself instead of the Family

If the little one wasn't so darn adorable, Dad would have some new gear!

you would be doing her a favor if you told her she is not going to disneyland and you are having a new camera ....it will be character building and stand her in good stead for in later life

Eventually though... The RP will most likely be bought.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

What impact does the Canon EOS R system have on your future M system purchases?

It makes sense to have both systems.

Landscapes often go together with traveling and hiking. Thats why a compact form factor + wide angle go's perfectly together. The M50 will likely have a better dynamic range than the RP as the RP has the 6DmkII sensor, and the R will be to big (and eventually also to costly), especially with a RF wide angle lens.

first lens for M: ef-m 11-22mm

Another reason to have M is the 32mm f/1.4. The RF mount only has the astronomical priced RF 50mm f/1.2, using the adapter the EF 50mm f/1.2 is not sharp at wider apertures, the EF 50 f/1.4 belongs in a museum, the Sigma 50mm is way to bulky, the 50mm f/1.8 is good for the price, but only for the price, so basically there is no suitable 50mm.

second lens for M: 32mm f/1.4

The R is better for portraits, to my eye the R+adapter+EF 85mm f/1.4 or Sigma 105 f/1.4 is perfect, and without adapter RF 85mm f/1.2 will also be fine.

first lens for RF: EF 85mm f/1.4 OR Sigma 105 f/1.4 OR RF 85mm f/1.2.

second lens for RF will be a 70-200mm f/2.8, there are several very good options here.

last and third lens for RF will be the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS. This one is better than the 22mm f/2.0 of M, and on M there is already the 11-22mm for 22mm and large DOF. Needing a lot of light is often indoors, and in these indoor cases the size and weight factor is less important. The RF lens also has IS. Needing a lot of light goes better together with a full frame lens.

If you want to save some money you could buy the EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM in stead of having both the 32mm f/1.4 and RF 35mm f/1.8 IS. It is not as good as both, but still it is not a weak performer and it will give you also IS on your M camera.

I think you will cover a lot of photographical needs with the best price-performance-usability ratio to have some lenses for the M system and some for the R. Having two cameras enables you to always have 2 focal lengths (or focal length ranges) available, and i think you can make several strong combination for a lot of situations eliminating the need for some zooms.

I realize I'm just expressing personal viewpoints here, but for those of us who shoot with a variety of different brand systems, the Canon EOS R system (including this new RP) may be inconsequential.

I've always been of the opinion that if I went FF (and I've been talking about doing that for a decade or so), it would be primarily to shoot much higher ISO, very low noise scenarios (above ISO 6400).  If I was just shooting with just the M system, then the R system might be quite appealing.

However, in my case, with me shooting with the EOS M, Fuji X, Micro 4/3, and the now defunct (yet still highly capable) Samsung NX system, I have many other options from which to choose.  For example, I'm getting superb high ISO results from my Fuji X system cameras, and currently it is my go-to camera for higher ISO scenarios - not to mention higher DR capabilities.

So although I'm glad to see Canon enter the FF mirrorless fray, for me, it's just not worth it.  If anything, I'd be inclined (if I had the bucks right now) to get the Fuji X-T3, or the pending X-T30.  But I'm quite content with the capabilities of my X-T1, X-E2, X-A3, and the superb (for stills shooters) X-T100.

No Impact.

Back in the time of the D3 (3MP) and then the 20D (8MP) I dreamed of going full frame.  Eventually did with the 5D/I/II/III.  Then Arthur intervened and I realized that APS-C had come a long way since the D3 and the M could add many years to my photography hobby.

Hclarkx wrote:

No Impact.

Back in the time of the D3 (3MP) and then the 20D (8MP) I dreamed of going full frame. Eventually did with the 5D/I/II/III. Then Arthur intervened and I realized that APS-C had come a long way since the D3 and the M could add many years to my photography hobby.

To me it's the detail you get with the better lenses (e.g. womens hair, inside of a flower, et al). Also, the sensor makes a difference on things like the detail of birds feathers, but most people would not notice these things. For landscapes maybe not much of a difference, but I can see the difference between a great ef lens and a M lenses.  Sometimes a great sensor can make a difference, but again most people won't notice the difference.  For action photos af makes a big differences (which the R is not there yet).  Again the R is not here with actions photos inside where high iso without noise makes a big difference.

So yes depending upon what you want to shot the R or RP or the future R pro or the Sony A9 or high end Nikon or Canon can make or break a photo session depending upon what one is trying to shoot assuming you had the talent for the shoot.  For most non pros such as I, I would say the M is fine.  That is, if I for instance miss a shot so what.  If a pro misses a shot he/she could lose a customer.

No impact

Switched from 600d and 350d (and about 5 or 6, 35mm SLR) before that due to weight and I liked the idea of mirrorless and see what you get through the viewfinder

Plan to get a couple of "M" lenses this year, I am using my old ef-s Sigma at the moment and if they do announce that they are stopping making M cameras will buy a couple in the final sale to last me out

No impact for me.

I don't find the bodies compelling yet and there are a few issues (technical and crippling-wise) that would need to be addressed to make them more interesting to me.

But mostly it's the lenses. Thom Hogan had an interesting piece on what Canon was up to. I always find his writing balanced and insightful. He figured they are executing a particular strategy with he thigh-end lenses. And so-so bodies at the start.

I'm not buying any of these lenses so the only way the R becomes interesting is when and if Canon starts making more modest primes. Again, the Nikon Z is a much more compelling system to me right now.

PaddyC wrote:

No impact for me.

I don't find the bodies compelling yet and there are a few issues (technical and crippling-wise) that would need to be addressed to make them more interesting to me.

But mostly it's the lenses. Thom Hogan had an interesting piece on what Canon was up to. I always find his writing balanced and insightful. He figured they are executing a particular strategy with he thigh-end lenses. And so-so bodies at the start.

I'm not buying any of these lenses so the only way the R becomes interesting is when and if Canon starts making more modest primes. Again, the Nikon Z is a much more compelling system to me right now.

While i do see Canon is behind with the bodies, especially in the AF department, and i agree both the R and even more the RP are non-L bodies, i don't see the the lack of modest primes would be a problem so much. Those who are on a budget will happily adapt EF primes like the EF 50mm f/1.8 stm or the EF 40mm f/2.8 stm. The EF 85mm f/1.8 isn't a great lens, but when you are on a budget it is a very good option to buy this second hand. It will be around 225 euro, which is only 100 euro more than the 50mm f/1.8 stm which also needs to be stopped down to f/2.8. The adapter costs 100 euro. But f/2.8 on full frame gives more background blur than f/2.8 on crop, and the 85mm on full frame will be sharper.

The 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro lens isn't that expensive either second hand (500 euro) or even new with cash back. It is big, but not really heavy, it is not as bright as the 85mm f/1.8, but on full frame it is sharp wide open and it has IS.

EF 135mm f/2.0 is 600 euro second hand.....

So, the real competitor to RF modest primes will be second hand EF glass. Maybe that is the reason why Canon didn't bring out so much modest primes. Obviously there is no size advantage, but it isn't always about size when you're buying a full frame camera.