Future of Canon M Series - Invest or Sell?

R2D2 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

rz64 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

gregorjeric wrote:

Some time ago I saw a rumor about 100-300 and having f8 at long end. I'd love to see that lens someday!

f/8.0 is fine, and to be honest, I consider my 55-250mm as an f/8.0 lens.

However, I'm not sure if a lens for the M-system starting at 100mm would sell well.

Why not? If it has an appropriate size

I think for most customers it will require too many lens changes. Even the existence of the 55-200mm next to the 18-150 is somewhat questionable if you ask me.

Well it does depend on what you shoot. For the wildlife shooters (esp birders) amongst us, an ultra-light telezoom starting at 100 and going to 300 or even 400 would surely be a winning combination (IMHO).

Encompassing shorter focal lengths in the range however would very likely compromise either the IQ, AF, or size (or all threee). Not to mention the cost would go up.

I think having an ultra-compact long EF-M zoom would make the M System an even more compelling a choice, but of course that’s exactly what Canon doesn’twant to see happen.

R2

I was talking about most customers.  Of course Canon should make a never-production model and send it to you for free, that's the ultimate truth here.     You're one of the most important Canon customers, without doubt. However, that's still not the same as most customers.

Most compact camera shooters aren't birders, and most birders won't consider an M camera, and if they do, they don't care about compactness to the degree small ef-m lenses are an appealing option to slap on that M camera. f/8.0 is fairly dark, if you need to stop down to get rid of heavy vignette things get worse, on crop beyond ISO 200 things are getting noticeable noisier already, so, if you need fast shutterspeeds it's simply not ideal.

Things get better with non moving objects, however, at some point IS will get a hard time keeping up with a high pixel density.  The RF mount has IBIS working in conjunction which could help here.

thunder storm wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

rz64 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

gregorjeric wrote:

Some time ago I saw a rumor about 100-300 and having f8 at long end. I'd love to see that lens someday!

f/8.0 is fine, and to be honest, I consider my 55-250mm as an f/8.0 lens.

However, I'm not sure if a lens for the M-system starting at 100mm would sell well.

Why not? If it has an appropriate size

I think for most customers it will require too many lens changes. Even the existence of the 55-200mm next to the 18-150 is somewhat questionable if you ask me.

Well it does depend on what you shoot. For the wildlife shooters (esp birders) amongst us, an ultra-light telezoom starting at 100 and going to 300 or even 400 would surely be a winning combination (IMHO).

Encompassing shorter focal lengths in the range however would very likely compromise either the IQ, AF, or size (or all threee). Not to mention the cost would go up.

I think having an ultra-compact long EF-M zoom would make the M System an even more compelling a choice, but of course that’s exactly what Canon doesn’twant to see happen.

R2

I was talking about most customers. Of course Canon should make a never-production model and send it to you for free, that's the ultimate truth here. You're one of the most important Canon customers, without doubt. However, that's still not the same as most customers.

Most compact camera shooters aren't birders, and most birders won't consider an M camera, and if they do, they don't care about compactness to the degree small ef-m lenses are an appealing option to slap on that M camera. f/8.0 is fairly dark, if you need to stop down to get rid of heavy vignette things get worse, on crop beyond ISO 200 things are getting noticeable noisier already, so, if you need fast shutterspeeds it's simply not ideal.

Things get better with non moving objects, however, at some point IS will get a hard time keeping up with a high pixel density. The RF mount has IBIS working in conjunction which could help here.

Of course, RF has IBIS and better f (not as dark), but it is just the M with its compactness and its underestimated qualities that make shooting a joy

Yeah, compactness, I know, but as you know birders have other priorities as well, and considering there's no free lunch it will likely be very beneficial to sacrifice some compactness to improve on the shutterspeed-ISOvalue ratio.

The high ISO noise of of smaller sensor isn't the best starting point to begin with, and dark apertures will only make things worse.  So M is a great system, but not the best tool for all jobs.

thunder storm wrote:

Yeah, compactness, I know, but as you know birders have other priorities as well, and considering there's no free lunch it will likely be very beneficial to sacrifice some compactness to improve on the shutterspeed-ISOvalue ratio.

The high ISO noise of of smaller sensor isn't the best starting point to begin with, and dark apertures will only make things worse. So M is a great system, but not the best tool for all jobs.

Yes, you are right, the M and its compactness is not the best tool for all jobs.

But being aware of that, for me the M is the best tool for my shooting.

rz64 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Yeah, compactness, I know, but as you know birders have other priorities as well, and considering there's no free lunch it will likely be very beneficial to sacrifice some compactness to improve on the shutterspeed-ISOvalue ratio.

The high ISO noise of of smaller sensor isn't the best starting point to begin with, and dark apertures will only make things worse. So M is a great system, but not the best tool for all jobs.

Yes, you are right, the M and its compactness is not the best tool for all jobs.

But being aware of that, for me the M is the best tool for my shooting.

Absolutely correct.

It’s the best tool for all my jobs too. And it would be even better with a 100-300(350) f/8. 😉

nnowak wrote:

gregorjeric wrote:

Some time ago I saw a rumor about 100-300 and having f8 at long end. I'd love to see that lens someday!

In all likelihood, that rumor is completely fake, just like all of the other EF-M lens rumors of the past. On the remote chance that this rumor is true, 300mm f/8 would break the 61mm diameter limit. By my rough calculations, this lens would need to be f/9.5 on the long end to fit within the 61mm diameter limit. Since it is unlikely Canon will break the 61mm diameter limit, we are back to this rumor being fake.

There is no diameter limit.
Or do you have a link to an official Canon statement?

thunder storm wrote:

Yeah, compactness, I know, but as you know birders have other priorities as well, and considering there's no free lunch it will likely be very beneficial to sacrifice some compactness to improve on the shutterspeed-ISOvalue ratio.

The high ISO noise of of smaller sensor isn't the best starting point to begin with, and dark apertures will only make things worse. So M is a great system, but not the best tool for all jobs.

I'd be delighted if Canon came out with a 55-250 that used nano-USM instead of STM. The 55-250 is (IMHO) the perfect size for my M6II. The nano-USM would enable it to keep up with the M's AF speed. The STM version does pretty well except in some wildlife situations.  The 55-250 range also pairs well with my G1X3 for a hiking kit.

If I expect to shoot action then I use the 70-300 nano-USM which can also mount on all my DSLRs. My general travel kit is a FF DSLR + 24-105 L + 100-400 II. The M6II + 70-300 weighs less than the 100-400 by itself. I like FF + f4 L for landscape, but the M has some special capabilities, like focus stacking, 14 FPS, 1.6 crop that add to FF. The M is still working its way into my kit. Unfortunately its been over a year of travel lock down so I keep rolling the possibilities over in my head.

Sigma could do it. They haven't followed that convention with their primes. They might too if they could make it in some other mounts to make it profitable enough.

Agreed. If my iPhone could take identical images to my gear right now, I wouldn’t use it. It really comes down to dials and buttons and physical form factor. I will always prefer a camera in my hands. Maybe I’m old and don’t realize it yet 😜

nnowak wrote:

gregorjeric wrote:

Some time ago I saw a rumor about 100-300 and having f8 at long end. I'd love to see that lens someday!

In all likelihood, that rumor is completely fake, just like all of the other EF-M lens rumors of the past.

The Ef-M 32mm rumor was not fake !

On the remote chance that this rumor is true, 300mm f/8 would break the 61mm diameter limit. By my rough calculations, this lens would need to be f/9.5 on the long end to fit within the 61mm diameter limit. Since it is unlikely Canon will break the 61mm diameter limit, we are back to this rumor being fake.