Is EF-M mount worth investing for a new user

Argh I actually made a typo on my post which I can't edit. I meant to say I prefer tilt over flip which does change the options! Sorry.

Thanks for your input so far.  Sounds like EF-M is still viable so that's good.

Alexis wrote:

Disdain wrote:

Argh I actually made a typo on my post which I can't edit. I meant to say I prefer tilt over flip which does change the options! Sorry.

You CAN change it - click on "More options" and then "Edit" just below you initial message...

Thanks for your input so far. Sounds like EF-M is still viable so that's good.

There's no option for me I only get 4 options.  I could edit until someone has replied.

First, to clarify, there are two primary types of screens; "fully articulated" and "tilting". Your FZ1000 would be the "fully articulated" type with the hinge on the side of the camera. "Titling" screens are hinged at the top and/or bottom.  "Flip" and "tilt" are often used interchangeably.  "Fully articulated" is also referred to as a "swivel" screen.  Things get even more confusing when you throw a screen like that on the Z9 into the conversation.

The M50 and M50 II employ "fully articulated" screens. All of the other M cameras use tilting screens, except for the original M and M2 which have fixed screens.

Whether or not an older model is worth buying will depend a lot on your personal needs and intended use.

• The M, M2, and M10 all use the much older 18mp sensors and produce the lowest image quality of the lineup. AF is only suitable for stationary subjects.
• The M3 uses an older 24mp sensor that is a step behind the newer models for image quality and the AF is also only really suitable for stationary subjects.
• The M5, M6, M100, M200, M50, and M50 II all use the same 24mp sensor which produces good image quality. AF is decent on the M5, M6, and M100. The M200 and M50 have better AF, and the M50 II has the best AF of this group
• The M6 II uses the newer 32mp sensor and has the best image quality and the best AF of the bunch.

If you are capturing video, only the M6 II offers decent 4k with good AF. The rest of the lineup is pretty lousy for video, by today's standards, and you would be better off capturing video with a smartphone.

Coming from m4/3, this may, or may not, be an issue for you.  None of the M system cameras have IBIS and nothing is weather sealed.  There are 5 zoom lenses with stabilization and the 28mm f/3.5 macro is also stabilized.  None of the other prime lenses will be stabilized.

Is the Canon EF-M still going strong?  No.  In 2018, Canon had 4 different bodies for sale.  In 2020 it was three bodies.  In 2022, the M6 II was discontinued and the lineup is down to just 2 bodies.  The last new lens was launched in 2018.  If the system has everything you would want right now, it could be a good value.  However, don't expect any new bodies with significantly upgraded features, or any new lenses.  By all appearances, Canon is slowly phasing out the EF-M system and is in the process of replacing it with the new crop RF-S system.

Disdain wrote:

Argh I actually made a typo on my post which I can't edit. I meant to say I prefer tilt over flip which does change the options! Sorry.

Thanks for your input so far. Sounds like EF-M is still viable so that's good.

I really like the tilt screen on the M6 mkII. Live view on a DSLR was always clunky. With mirrorless, I greatly prefer it over an eyepiece. Falls down in portrait orientation, though.

You pretty much sacrifice either speed or IS with EF-M lenses, to keep them compact. Canon's RF mount APS-C line bears watching, but most RF lenses so far are full-frame, and generally large and/or expensive. And no tilt screen cameras, yet.

trungtran wrote:

Sure, if you need a camera right now, EF-M mount will do the job in the short term.

If you can wait for the R100 /R1000 that will be a better system to go into.

Is the M series along with that lens mount being discontinued?

Thanks

Rick

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

First, to clarify, there are two primary types of screens; "fully articulated" and "tilting". Your FZ1000 would be the "fully articulated" type with the hinge on the side of the camera. "Titling" screens are hinged at the top and/or bottom. "Flip" and "tilt" are often used interchangeably. "Fully articulated" is also referred to as a "swivel" screen. Things get even more confusing when you throw a screen like that on the Z9 into the conversation.

.......................
Is the Canon EF-M still going strong? No. In 2018, Canon had 4 different bodies for sale. In 2020 it was three bodies. In 2022, the M6 II was discontinued and the lineup is down to just 2 bodies. The last new lens was launched in 2018. If the system has everything you would want right now, it could be a good value. However, don't expect any new bodies with significantly upgraded features, or any new lenses. By all appearances, Canon is slowly phasing out the EF-M system and is in the process of replacing it with the new crop RF-S system.

If you face the facts, obviously there is only small "movement" in the M-system.

However, how can the new crop RF-S system replace the EOS-M?

• Although the number of M-lenses is small, it is large compared to the number of RF-S-lenses.

Not once you consider all of the suitable full frame RF lenses

• What do you think, how long will it take to have a comparable number of comparable lenses?

EF-M has been around for 10 years and Canon only created 8 lenses for the system. RF-S has not even been around for 2 months at this point. If you count all of the full frame RF glass that makes sense on crop, there are already just as many RF lenses as EF-M lenses. Canon probably won't make 1:1 copies of every EF-M lens, but RF crop will end up with plenty of options.

• There is (almost) no comparable lens concerning size, weight and costs.

There are more than you think. The first two RF-S lenses are the same size, weight, and price as the comparable EF-M lenses. The RF 16mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.8 IS, 35mm f/1.8 IS, and 50mm f/1.8 are all small, light, and affordable. Even the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0 IS, RF 600mm f/11 and RF 800mm f/11 are relatively small and affordable for what they are. Given how many people in this forum are adapting 100-400mm DSLR lenses to the M cameras, the RF 100-400mm is going to be extremely popular with R7 and R10 buyers.  The lack of a wide angle zoom is the most glaring absence, but Canon will almost certainly rectify that soon as it was an early priority in their other mounts. Most of the options mentioned above do not have a Canon equivalent in EF-M mount, and instead require a third party lens and/or adapted DSLR lens.

• If size matters, no combination of R-body with RF-S-lens will ever equal an M-camera with an M-lens.

On size, no. On weight, yes. The R10 with either kit lens is within 28 grams of the M6 II with either kit lens.

• The RF-S is the system to lure customers to FF, not to APS-C. So they can't make it too strong, otherwise the expensive R-lenses lose attractiveness.

People have been saying the exact same thing about the M system. The difference is Canon can sell an "L" series RF lens to a R10/R7 buyer, but not to an M system owner.

Proclaiming the end of the M has little influence on the future of this great system.
Instead of permanently emphasizing the issues, you should better use your M-camera for shooting, you can get fantastic results

Every modern camera from every manufacturer is capable of fantastic results.

Bejersey wrote:

trungtran wrote:

Sure, if you need a camera right now, EF-M mount will do the job in the short term.

If you can wait for the R100 /R1000 that will be a better system to go into.

Is the M series along with that lens mount being discontinued?

Thanks

Rick

Not immediately discontinued, but all signs clearly point to being gradually phased out.  No new lenses in almost 4 years and a gradual discontinuation of bodies.  We are in the transition with EF-M ramping down while RF-S is ramping up.

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

First, to clarify, there are two primary types of screens; "fully articulated" and "tilting". Your FZ1000 would be the "fully articulated" type with the hinge on the side of the camera. "Titling" screens are hinged at the top and/or bottom. "Flip" and "tilt" are often used interchangeably. "Fully articulated" is also referred to as a "swivel" screen. Things get even more confusing when you throw a screen like that on the Z9 into the conversation.

.......................
Is the Canon EF-M still going strong? No. In 2018, Canon had 4 different bodies for sale. In 2020 it was three bodies. In 2022, the M6 II was discontinued and the lineup is down to just 2 bodies. The last new lens was launched in 2018. If the system has everything you would want right now, it could be a good value. However, don't expect any new bodies with significantly upgraded features, or any new lenses. By all appearances, Canon is slowly phasing out the EF-M system and is in the process of replacing it with the new crop RF-S system.

If you face the facts, obviously there is only small "movement" in the M-system.

However, how can the new crop RF-S system replace the EOS-M?

• Although the number of M-lenses is small, it is large compared to the number of RF-S-lenses.

Not once you consider all of the suitable full frame RF lenses

I meant "native" M-lenses compared to "native" RF-S-lenses.

All RF lenses are native RF-S lenses

• What do you think, how long will it take to have a comparable number of comparable lenses?

EF-M has been around for 10 years and Canon only created 8 lenses for the system. RF-S has not even been around for 2 months at this point. If you count all of the full frame RF glass that makes sense on crop, there are already just as many RF lenses as EF-M lenses. Canon probably won't make 1:1 copies of every EF-M lens, but RF crop will end up with plenty of options.

Actually there are two RF-S-lenses. And I don't count RF lenses, since I also don't count third party lenses for the M.

RF lenses are not third party lenses.  Dismissing full frame RF lenses simply because they are full frame is utter nonsense and completely ignores the reality of how people will build out their kits.  Just like EF-S, RF-S owners will have a mix of crop and full frame glass.

• There is (almost) no comparable lens concerning size, weight and costs.

There are more than you think. The first two RF-S lenses are the same size, weight, and price as the comparable EF-M lenses. The RF 16mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.8 IS, 35mm f/1.8 IS, and 50mm f/1.8 are all small, light, and affordable. Even the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0 IS, RF 600mm f/11 and RF 800mm f/11 are relatively small and affordable for what they are. Given how many people in this forum are adapting 100-400mm DSLR lenses to the M cameras, the RF 100-400mm is going to be extremely popular with R7 and R10 buyers. The lack of a wide angle zoom is the most glaring absence, but Canon will almost certainly rectify that soon as it was an early priority in their other mounts. Most of the options mentioned above do not have a Canon equivalent in EF-M mount, and instead require a third party lens and/or adapted DSLR lens.

The same as above. Where are the equivalents in size, weight and costs for the 11-22mm, 22mm, 32mm, 55-200mm?

Where are the size, weight, and cost equivalents for a 16mm f/2.8, stabilized 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 or 100-400mm f/5.6-8.0?

• If size matters, no combination of R-body with RF-S-lens will ever equal an M-camera with an M-lens.

On size, no. On weight, yes. The R10 with either kit lens is within 28 grams of the M6 II with either kit lens.

It will never be comparable on size and rarely on weight and almost never on costs.

100% of the current RF-S lenses directly compete with the comparable EF-M lenses on size, weight, and cost.  There is zero reason to believe this trend won't continue.  Especially since Canon has clearly made it a priority to also produce full frame lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts.

• The RF-S is the system to lure customers to FF, not to APS-C. So they can't make it too strong, otherwise the expensive R-lenses lose attractiveness.

People have been saying the exact same thing about the M system. The difference is Canon can sell an "L" series RF lens to a R10/R7 buyer, but not to an M system owner.

No. The M was not created to lure people to FF.

Obvously.

Why should an R10/R7 buyer be interested in an RF lens? If you buy RF lenses, you want FF. And you regard an R10 as a complementation, but not as a substitute.

A R10 plus full frame RF 100-400mm is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than any equivalent combination you can produce with the M system.  The same is true for the RF 16mm and RF 50mm.  You buy a RF lens because it is the right focal length and aperture for the job.  Whether it is crop of full frame is irrelevant.

Proclaiming the end of the M has little influence on the future of this great system.
Instead of permanently emphasizing the issues, you should better use your M-camera for shooting, you can get fantastic results

Every modern camera from every manufacturer is capable of fantastic results.

But I never saw you permanently proclaiming issues of Fuji-cameras.

What does Fuji have to do with the OP's questions?

You can nitpick arbitrary specifications all day long, but it won't change the fact that Canon is clearly killing off the M system in favor of the RF system.

I think investing in this system now is too late unless you have a low budget and don’t demand much.

I do not see Canon releasing an M body for at least another 2 years.  Why would they and undercut R7 sales - They are not going to go to 36-40 megapixels and leap above the R7 until 2 -3 years from now when they come out with the R8 with even more megapixels or a stacked sensor.  I don’t think the M will ever leap above the top of the line RF camera so we have to wait for the r7 to mature first.  I sure hope I am wrong but the R7 has caused me to lose hope that the M will ever be any better than any RF camera.