Canon M7 as the last M series camera?

Agreed.  After giving it a lot of thought, weather sealing is the main missing thing with these wonderful small cameras.

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

Quite easily - apparently the shutter`s jarring affects the IS so non IS zooms aren`t affected either - whatever, shutter shock was never mentioned or an issue with the M system before the M6-II or with the ones launched after like the M200 and M50-II ...

The M6-II used or new is a big chunk of cash in the UK new or used , not an amount I can take a risk on and I`m sure many others would jump on the camera too if they did the right thing and add EFCS to the firmware .

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

KEG wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

I've seen posts by others also who can't reproduce the so-called 'shutter shock' either. This really remains a mystery to me.

If it were a 'common issue', with my depth of analysis and the number of frames I've shot, surely I'd have seen it by now. It didn't happen when my cameras were new, nor after tens of thousands of frames.

I forgot to mention I also did not see it with a 3rd M6ii body (refurb) that I used for a week before the battery door switch failed and I sent it back for a replacement. I'd say 3 different bodies and 8 different zooms is a pretty good sample size to look for it.

Larry Rexley wrote:

KEG wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

I've seen posts by others also who can't reproduce the so-called 'shutter shock' either. This really remains a mystery to me.

If it were a 'common issue', with my depth of analysis and the number of frames I've shot, surely I'd have seen it by now. It didn't happen when my cameras were new, nor after tens of thousands of frames.

I forgot to mention I also did not see it with a 3rd M6ii body (refurb) that I used for a week before the battery door switch failed and I sent it back for a replacement. I'd say 3 different bodies and 8 different zooms is a pretty good sample size to look for it.

Harmonic resonance ? 

Clearly SS is an issue with this body.

There are numerous tests that physically demonstrate this available online—look them up.

The effect gets worse at increasing FLs (duh!), and is worse with cheap IS zooms.

The long end of the 18-150, for instance, is brutal for this—at shutter speeds that, by rights, should be crystal sharp.

Its lack of EFCS is my biggest complaint about a body that’s otherwise golden, IMO.

Luckily, my two most used lenses on this body (the 32 and the 11-22; although even this lens can be affected at the long end) are pretty much immune to this effect.

The 32 lives on this body, and is essentially immune.

But the 18-150, which I purchased as a kit combo with this body, and which is otherwise a stellar travel lens, in my hands, is horribly susceptible to this effect.

m100 wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

KEG wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

I've seen posts by others also who can't reproduce the so-called 'shutter shock' either. This really remains a mystery to me.

If it were a 'common issue', with my depth of analysis and the number of frames I've shot, surely I'd have seen it by now. It didn't happen when my cameras were new, nor after tens of thousands of frames.

I forgot to mention I also did not see it with a 3rd M6ii body (refurb) that I used for a week before the battery door switch failed and I sent it back for a replacement. I'd say 3 different bodies and 8 different zooms is a pretty good sample size to look for it.

Harmonic resonance ?

ex human wrote:

Clearly SS is an issue with this body.

There are numerous tests that physically demonstrate this available online—look them up.

The effect gets worse at increasing FLs (duh!), and is worse with cheap IS zooms.

The long end of the 18-150, for instance, is brutal for this—at shutter speeds that, by rights, should be crystal sharp.

Its lack of EFCS is my biggest complaint about a body that’s otherwise golden, IMO.

Luckily, my two most used lenses on this body (the 32 and the 11-22; although even this lens can be affected at the long end) are pretty much immune to this effect.

The 32 lives on this body, and is essentially immune.

But the 18-150, which I purchased as a kit combo with this body, and which is otherwise a stellar travel lens, in my hands, is horribly susceptible to this effect.

Been there, done that. Honestly I am unable to repro the results others are showing with the same lenses and shutter speeds, etc.

Maybe I'm lucky and have better copies of the lenses.

What you're saying confirms that perhaps this should be called 'zoom-lens-IS-shock' and not M6ii camera body shutter shock.

m100 wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

KEG wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

I've seen posts by others also who can't reproduce the so-called 'shutter shock' either. This really remains a mystery to me.

If it were a 'common issue', with my depth of analysis and the number of frames I've shot, surely I'd have seen it by now. It didn't happen when my cameras were new, nor after tens of thousands of frames.

I forgot to mention I also did not see it with a 3rd M6ii body (refurb) that I used for a week before the battery door switch failed and I sent it back for a replacement. I'd say 3 different bodies and 8 different zooms is a pretty good sample size to look for it.

Harmonic resonance ?

Larry Rexley wrote:

ex human wrote:

Clearly SS is an issue with this body.

There are numerous tests that physically demonstrate this available online—look them up.

The effect gets worse at increasing FLs (duh!), and is worse with cheap IS zooms.

The long end of the 18-150, for instance, is brutal for this—at shutter speeds that, by rights, should be crystal sharp.

Its lack of EFCS is my biggest complaint about a body that’s otherwise golden, IMO.

Luckily, my two most used lenses on this body (the 32 and the 11-22; although even this lens can be affected at the long end) are pretty much immune to this effect.

The 32 lives on this body, and is essentially immune.

But the 18-150, which I purchased as a kit combo with this body, and which is otherwise a stellar travel lens, in my hands, is horribly susceptible to this effect.

Been there, done that. Honestly I am unable to repro the results others are showing with the same lenses and shutter speeds, etc.

Maybe I'm lucky and have better copies of the lenses.

What you're saying confirms that perhaps this should be called 'zoom-lens-IS-shock' and not M6ii camera body shutter shock.

Went through my photos again and I really don't see ANY indication of any problem.

Of course my M6ii was made in 2022 (according to the box and the timestamp on the battery) so it is possible that there where some minor adjustments made during the production run.

m100 wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

KEG wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

AdamT wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

I bet there are a fair few taken with IS Zooms and the Mech shutter which delivered far from the full capability of the sensor for that lens though ...

Whatever it`s not an argument, its a fact that it does it, has been proven on here many times in many threads and canon have the power to fix it - Defending them about it over the years has let them get away with it .. It`d be a good thing for owners and sales of the last bastion of EOS-M to do it, people who want RF will get the R7 or R10 anyway - they can`t even be bothered to port the M 11-22 and the primes over to RF for those native-lens starved cameras which is ridiculous as it6`d be pretty much Zero R&D and we know how good they are .

- my post was about that an M7 isn`t needed (although an M5-II Would have been fantastic) , all they need to do is add EFCS to the otherwise pretty spot-on M6-II at minimum cost

I have now every EF-M zoom, and two M6 Mark ii bodies. I have owned 4 other copies of the 15-45. I have tried and tried to repro this so-called shutter-shock issue with both bodies using mechanical shutter at the speeds people say it happens, with the lenses they say it happens, and can't do it. And I am a pixel-peeper who views all my images at the pixel level while processing. So I am not in the camp where it is a 'fact.' I think something else is going on.

I also think shutter shock is a misnomer... if it does not occur with prime lenses, how can it be shutter shock?

I have around 10k frames with my M6ii and I have never encountered this issue a single time.

I've seen posts by others also who can't reproduce the so-called 'shutter shock' either. This really remains a mystery to me.

If it were a 'common issue', with my depth of analysis and the number of frames I've shot, surely I'd have seen it by now. It didn't happen when my cameras were new, nor after tens of thousands of frames.

I forgot to mention I also did not see it with a 3rd M6ii body (refurb) that I used for a week before the battery door switch failed and I sent it back for a replacement. I'd say 3 different bodies and 8 different zooms is a pretty good sample size to look for it.

Harmonic resonance ?

ex human wrote:

Clearly SS is an issue with this body.

There are numerous tests that physically demonstrate this available online—look them up.

Right ?  So I did my own tests and concluded that if my camera body did SS like some of the online SS tests I would send it back.

MyM6II wrote:

I have never had a photo destroyed by shutter shock. (And I have taken a lot.)

Likewise.  Here’s a good previous discussion for anybody interested…

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65494835

R2

That's exactly what I want to say. I want sigma1850!

The M5 owners seem to have the strongest opinions for one more upgrade.  Maybe M6ii upgrade after that?  Either one over the  M7 as long as it happens.  Compact travel cameras are still in high demand.

Same for me on the M50 body.  Just need a fast wide angle in a smaller lens and a fast zoom to replace the kit lens.  There is no way that RF-S lenses can be compact and travel worthy as Canon M glass.

Right size and right price are unique to APS-C buyers.  The decision might come down to size and portability where the M line excels. Not too small like other brands.

Your suggestion would be first on the list for an update for the Canon M if hardware is put on hold in 2023.