Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Kharan wrote:

nnowak wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

in business perpective, Nikon 1 and Canon M are the most expensive mistake in camera industry

Not likely. Cameras like the M50 sold more than well enough for Canon easily recoup all of the M system development costs.

Nikon 1 might be a different story.

The problems here are the loss of consumer confidence, as well as the opportunity costs, incurred by Canon. It’s obvious, from reading this thread, that many EOS M users are very displeased at Canon for the end result of their dumb decisions

Not as much as you might think. While the members of this forum are quite vocal and the M50/M50 II were best-selling models, the M system as a whole never had a large user base. One year of Canon's peak DSLR sales basically equal the entire history of M sales.

The types of users buying into the M system are also important to consider. Entry level users, as a whole, often buy a single dedicated camera, then give up on the concept and go back to their smartphone. Many of them probably could not even tell you what brand of interchangeable lens camera they stuffed in the back of a closet years ago. The M100, M200, M50, and M50 II sold heavily to this group. At the other end were people who bought into the M system as an accessory to their larger DSLR's, and then later, their larger RF bodies. While this group might lament the loss of a small body like the M6 II, the compatibility of RF-S with their larger RF gear offers distinct advantages. It is really only the relatively small middle group of advanced users where the M system is their only/primary system who are suffering the most by this change.

(jumping into mirrorless late, with an obviously born-to-be-an-orphan mount, creating gimped products for it, and always treating it like the red headed stepchild). The damage will be difficult to quantify, but Fujifilm’s success should be a good indicator of the viability of the enthusiast APS market. Their user base is largely composed of “renegade” crop aficionados from other systems, and one of the main user donors (if not THE main one) has been Canon.

I don't think Fuji's market share has changed dramatically in the last few years. Any M users moving to Fuji are mostly coming from that small middle group I mentioned above. RF users will just add RF-S. M200 users will just go back to their smartphone.

All of Canon’s stupid decisions regarding EOS M have already exacted a toll, and will continue to do so. With that said, they finally did one thing right with the unification of everything under RF (the cinema cameras are coming any day now). This should reduce user anxiety a little, since RF will be Canon’s single focus for at least a decade, and probably for a lot longer.

Nikon 1 did definitely do worse, but it didn’t need to. It was more viable in the long term, because it could occupy a niche that no other system could. What Nikon didn’t do with was a real shame.

Nikon 1 and Canon M shared the same fatal flaw. Both systems were conceived as an accessory to a DSLR and smallest possible size was the sole design directive. At the time, neither Nikon or Canon saw mirrorless as a full on replacement for DSLRs. To be fair, Sony also made the same mistake, but the E mount was just barely large enough to fit a full frame sensor which allowed Sony to pivot while still keeping the same mount. If the manufacturers knew where mirrorless technology would end up, and how inexpensive full frame sensor would become, many (most?) would have made different design choices for their new mounts.

Nikon made the fatal flaw with N1 that they put a small sensor in a very small body. Due to the fear, that N1 could cannibalize their DSLR sales.

The biggest problem with the 1 system were the tiny zoom lenses with really slow apertures. Why buy a N1 body with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom when you could get a smaller Sony RX100 compact with a 2 stop brighter f/1.8-2.8 zoom?

Canon, however, made a step in the right direction with the M: a large sensor in a small body. A still perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling etc.

Technically, for most people, a modern smartphone is a perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling, etc.

Obviously you like turning things upside down. I have differentiated between smartphones and cameras. Anybody deciding for a camera is aware that it is larger than a smartphone.

In the early days of mirrorless, ALL manufacturers were prioritizing smallest possible size in the design process. Remember those early Sony bodies where the mount was bigger than the camera body? Prioritizing size back then made sense because in most other regards, performance was pretty lousy compared to a DSLR.

You cannot erase the size advantage of the M vs. R.

With reference to your comment, one could ask who will be the buyers of RF-S?
The same as you have described above for M: RF-S is just an accessory to their larger DSLRs or DSLMs.

The R50 with kit lenses will work just as well for an entry level user as the M5 II with kit lenses. As a standalone system, RF-S has some better options than EF-M for many situations. For example, the R7 and RF 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a great option for capturing sporting events that would be next to impossible to match with the M system

I am sure that you know the price for the RF 70-200 f/2.8. It is a large, heavy and very expensive lens, neither M-users nor "entry level users" are the target group for this lens.

But Canon follows again the path of "crippling" this new system.
I assume, that there will be (almost) no bright lenses for RF-S, because this could cannibalize the expensive RF-lenses. Since the value of a system is mainly dominated by the lenses, what is speaking for RF-S?

Canon only launched one truly bright lens for the M system (EF-M 32mm f/1.4), and it took 6 years into the existence of the system for that to happen. The Sigma trio took even longer. We are not even 12 months into the existence of RF-S.

Yes, it took 6 years, but we have the following lenses with good to very good IQ:
11-22, 22, 32, 55-200, Sigma trio
Just enough to get a perfect travel kit.

While not EF-M small, the RF 24mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 are all reasonably small, light, and inexpensive. Two of those three are even stabilized. As good as the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 may be, it is not defacto superior to the stabilized RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. Stabilization and macro capabilities can be more valuable than the 2/3 of a stop difference. Pretty much all of the same is true of the EF-M 22mm f/2.0 vs. the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS Macro, but the RF lens is 1/3 of a stop faster.

Did you ever enumerate advantages of the M and its lenses? I am sure that you could also find several issues with the RF-lenses.
In general, R and its lenses are heavier, larger, and especially more expensive, as you know. Exceptions prove the rule.

And there is one more point concerning the general camera market: Beside the flooding with smartphones, to my mind the market for new digital cameras is oversaturated. Photographers in the last 20 years have improved their gear - probably several times - with new and better cameras and lenses. Beside the rise of the smartphones this is one more reason for the decline of camera sales numbers.

Yes, the camera market is mature, but that does not mean there is no room for new innovation.

But innovations become smaller and more expensive. And the optical results mostly won't get better significantly.
I am sorry, but many of your comments sound like being directly published by a Canon-R-promoter.

When I go to the car show today it will be with the M6II and a 22mm because I am going to have fun !

I do know what it is like to carry a RP with a 35mm STM around all day. Not as fun.

The picture IQ ? I pick the M6II with the 22mm at ISO 100 over the RP with the 35mm STM at ISO 100.

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Kharan wrote:

nnowak wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

in business perpective, Nikon 1 and Canon M are the most expensive mistake in camera industry

Not likely. Cameras like the M50 sold more than well enough for Canon easily recoup all of the M system development costs.

Nikon 1 might be a different story.

The problems here are the loss of consumer confidence, as well as the opportunity costs, incurred by Canon. It’s obvious, from reading this thread, that many EOS M users are very displeased at Canon for the end result of their dumb decisions

Not as much as you might think. While the members of this forum are quite vocal and the M50/M50 II were best-selling models, the M system as a whole never had a large user base. One year of Canon's peak DSLR sales basically equal the entire history of M sales.

The types of users buying into the M system are also important to consider. Entry level users, as a whole, often buy a single dedicated camera, then give up on the concept and go back to their smartphone. Many of them probably could not even tell you what brand of interchangeable lens camera they stuffed in the back of a closet years ago. The M100, M200, M50, and M50 II sold heavily to this group. At the other end were people who bought into the M system as an accessory to their larger DSLR's, and then later, their larger RF bodies. While this group might lament the loss of a small body like the M6 II, the compatibility of RF-S with their larger RF gear offers distinct advantages. It is really only the relatively small middle group of advanced users where the M system is their only/primary system who are suffering the most by this change.

(jumping into mirrorless late, with an obviously born-to-be-an-orphan mount, creating gimped products for it, and always treating it like the red headed stepchild). The damage will be difficult to quantify, but Fujifilm’s success should be a good indicator of the viability of the enthusiast APS market. Their user base is largely composed of “renegade” crop aficionados from other systems, and one of the main user donors (if not THE main one) has been Canon.

I don't think Fuji's market share has changed dramatically in the last few years. Any M users moving to Fuji are mostly coming from that small middle group I mentioned above. RF users will just add RF-S. M200 users will just go back to their smartphone.

All of Canon’s stupid decisions regarding EOS M have already exacted a toll, and will continue to do so. With that said, they finally did one thing right with the unification of everything under RF (the cinema cameras are coming any day now). This should reduce user anxiety a little, since RF will be Canon’s single focus for at least a decade, and probably for a lot longer.

Nikon 1 did definitely do worse, but it didn’t need to. It was more viable in the long term, because it could occupy a niche that no other system could. What Nikon didn’t do with was a real shame.

Nikon 1 and Canon M shared the same fatal flaw. Both systems were conceived as an accessory to a DSLR and smallest possible size was the sole design directive. At the time, neither Nikon or Canon saw mirrorless as a full on replacement for DSLRs. To be fair, Sony also made the same mistake, but the E mount was just barely large enough to fit a full frame sensor which allowed Sony to pivot while still keeping the same mount. If the manufacturers knew where mirrorless technology would end up, and how inexpensive full frame sensor would become, many (most?) would have made different design choices for their new mounts.

Nikon made the fatal flaw with N1 that they put a small sensor in a very small body. Due to the fear, that N1 could cannibalize their DSLR sales.

The biggest problem with the 1 system were the tiny zoom lenses with really slow apertures. Why buy a N1 body with a 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom when you could get a smaller Sony RX100 compact with a 2 stop brighter f/1.8-2.8 zoom?

Canon, however, made a step in the right direction with the M: a large sensor in a small body. A still perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling etc.

Technically, for most people, a modern smartphone is a perfect combination for everyday shooting, traveling, etc.

Obviously you like turning things upside down. I have differentiated between smartphones and cameras. Anybody deciding for a camera is aware that it is larger than a smartphone.

In the early days of mirrorless, ALL manufacturers were prioritizing smallest possible size in the design process. Remember those early Sony bodies where the mount was bigger than the camera body? Prioritizing size back then made sense because in most other regards, performance was pretty lousy compared to a DSLR.

You cannot erase the size advantage of the M vs. R.

With reference to your comment, one could ask who will be the buyers of RF-S?
The same as you have described above for M: RF-S is just an accessory to their larger DSLRs or DSLMs.

The R50 with kit lenses will work just as well for an entry level user as the M5 II with kit lenses. As a standalone system, RF-S has some better options than EF-M for many situations. For example, the R7 and RF 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a great option for capturing sporting events that would be next to impossible to match with the M system

I am sure that you know the price for the RF 70-200 f/2.8. It is a large, heavy and very expensive lens, neither M-users nor "entry level users" are the target group for this lens.

But Canon follows again the path of "crippling" this new system.
I assume, that there will be (almost) no bright lenses for RF-S, because this could cannibalize the expensive RF-lenses. Since the value of a system is mainly dominated by the lenses, what is speaking for RF-S?

Canon only launched one truly bright lens for the M system (EF-M 32mm f/1.4), and it took 6 years into the existence of the system for that to happen. The Sigma trio took even longer. We are not even 12 months into the existence of RF-S.

Yes, it took 6 years, but we have the following lenses with good to very good IQ:
11-22, 22, 32, 55-200, Sigma trio
Just enough to get a perfect travel kit.

I own m6II + 32 + 11-22

just so you know, your 7 lenses is a lot of gear to carry and a lot of lens changes - m never had a bright zoom

I'm excited to get an $1499 R8 to go with my $899 RF 24-105 F4L that will have a whopping -6.5 EV focus aquisition in low light @ f1.2 or -3.2 EV @ f4 ( which should focus in moonlight

combined with DXO PL noise redux - this one lens and one body and one great NR software is the future m killer imo

While not EF-M small, the RF 24mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8 are all reasonably small, light, and inexpensive. Two of those three are even stabilized. As good as the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 may be, it is not defacto superior to the stabilized RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. Stabilization and macro capabilities can be more valuable than the 2/3 of a stop difference. Pretty much all of the same is true of the EF-M 22mm f/2.0 vs. the RF 24mm f/1.8 IS Macro, but the RF lens is 1/3 of a stop faster.

Did you ever enumerate advantages of the M and its lenses? I am sure that you could also find several issues with the RF-lenses.
In general, R and its lenses are heavier, larger, and especially more expensive, as you know. Exceptions prove the rule.

And there is one more point concerning the general camera market: Beside the flooding with smartphones, to my mind the market for new digital cameras is oversaturated. Photographers in the last 20 years have improved their gear - probably several times - with new and better cameras and lenses. Beside the rise of the smartphones this is one more reason for the decline of camera sales numbers.

Yes, the camera market is mature, but that does not mean there is no room for new innovation.

But innovations become smaller and more expensive. And the optical results mostly won't get better significantly.
I am sorry, but many of your comments sound like being directly published by a Canon-R-promoter.

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

The camera makers are acting just like any corporation

Exactly. The #1 goal in business is profitability. EVERY SINGLE decision made must lead to profitability, and the sustainability of said business.

they get over their consumers when it suits them. Sony killed most of their crop

”Crop” of consumers? Or crop lineup? I LOVE this double entendre!

Nikon is protecting their FF like Canon (and killed the 1, DL lines), Canon killed the M.

As phone cameras take over more and more of the market, FF holds much more appeal for the camera manufacturers.

Fuji is just expensive and FF in size, lacks class leading AF

Yup, IMHO fuji had their chance to make it big in crop, and blew it (great designs, poor algorithms).

And a couple companies have gone under or exited the camera market (I’m looking at you, Samsung NX1).

And more camera lines to meet that same fate!

Consumer confidence? Meh. Canon is still the lesser of evils.

Canon has always taken the looong view. IMHO that’s how they’ve not only survived, but flourished in the digital world.

But you’re right, they have their evil moments. M killing being one of ‘em.

Evil for us die-hards unfortunately, but a brilliant move nevertheless by Canon.

I was bugged by them and the lack of RF-s lenses

They know where their meat and potatoes are!  

but now that they are releasing the R8, as an enthusiast, I really don't care about their RF APSC releases anymore

Exactly. You’ve found your happy-place MAC. I’m ecstatic for you.

Third party kill joy being another. If Canons ways don’t suit you? Pick another evil corporations product. See above points though. All theses camera makers are leaving consumers behind when it suits them.

the pie is smaller

some will sunset

Yep. Fortunately my M kit is fully fleshed out.  I’ve got my small and light for-fun and travel shooter right here.

imo - the R8 will blow some out of the water

To some folks the R8 may look like an under-performer (on paper), but they’re wrong wrong wrong. This camera powered by DIGIC X will absolutely kill it.

In fact I might have to get one myself!  😁

R2

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

The camera makers are acting just like any corporation

Exactly. The #1 goal in business is profitability. EVERY SINGLE decision made must lead to profitability, and the sustainability of said business.

they get over their consumers when it suits them. Sony killed most of their crop

”Crop” of consumers? Or crop lineup? I LOVE this double entendre!

Nikon is protecting their FF like Canon (and killed the 1, DL lines), Canon killed the M.

As phone cameras take over more and more of the market, FF holds much more appeal for the camera manufacturers.

Fuji is just expensive and FF in size, lacks class leading AF

Yup, IMHO fuji had their chance to make it big in crop, and blew it (great designs, poor algorithms).

And a couple companies have gone under or exited the camera market (I’m looking at you, Samsung NX1).

And more camera lines to meet that same fate!

Consumer confidence? Meh. Canon is still the lesser of evils.

Canon has always taken the looong view. IMHO that’s how they’ve not only survived, but flourished in the digital world.

But you’re right, they have their evil moments. M killing being one of ‘em.

Evil for us die-hards unfortunately, but a brilliant move nevertheless by Canon.

I was bugged by them and the lack of RF-s lenses

They know where their meat and potatoes are!

but now that they are releasing the R8, as an enthusiast, I really don't care about their RF APSC releases anymore

Exactly. You’ve found your happy-place MAC. I’m ecstatic for you.

Third party kill joy being another. If Canons ways don’t suit you? Pick another evil corporations product. See above points though. All theses camera makers are leaving consumers behind when it suits them.

the pie is smaller

some will sunset

Yep. Fortunately my M kit is fully fleshed out. I’ve got my small and light for-fun and travel shooter right here.

imo - the R8 will blow some out of the water

To some folks the R8 may look like an under-performer (on paper), but they’re wrong wrong wrong. This camera powered by DIGIC X will absolutely kill it.

In fact I might have to get one myself! 😁

R2

Canon is so high tech. They could stop making consumer cameras at any time.

https://www.usa.canon.com/business/semiconductor

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

The camera makers are acting just like any corporation

Exactly. The #1 goal in business is profitability. EVERY SINGLE decision made must lead to profitability, and the sustainability of said business.

they get over their consumers when it suits them. Sony killed most of their crop

”Crop” of consumers? Or crop lineup? I LOVE this double entendre!

Nikon is protecting their FF like Canon (and killed the 1, DL lines), Canon killed the M.

As phone cameras take over more and more of the market, FF holds much more appeal for the camera manufacturers.

Fuji is just expensive and FF in size, lacks class leading AF

Yup, IMHO fuji had their chance to make it big in crop, and blew it (great designs, poor algorithms).

And a couple companies have gone under or exited the camera market (I’m looking at you, Samsung NX1).

And more camera lines to meet that same fate!

Consumer confidence? Meh. Canon is still the lesser of evils.

Canon has always taken the looong view. IMHO that’s how they’ve not only survived, but flourished in the digital world.

But you’re right, they have their evil moments. M killing being one of ‘em.

Evil for us die-hards unfortunately, but a brilliant move nevertheless by Canon.

I was bugged by them and the lack of RF-s lenses

They know where their meat and potatoes are!

but now that they are releasing the R8, as an enthusiast, I really don't care about their RF APSC releases anymore

Exactly. You’ve found your happy-place MAC. I’m ecstatic for you.

Third party kill joy being another. If Canons ways don’t suit you? Pick another evil corporations product. See above points though. All theses camera makers are leaving consumers behind when it suits them.

the pie is smaller

some will sunset

Yep. Fortunately my M kit is fully fleshed out. I’ve got my small and light for-fun and travel shooter right here.

imo - the R8 will blow some out of the water

To some folks the R8 may look like an under-performer (on paper), but they’re wrong wrong wrong. This camera powered by DIGIC X will absolutely kill it.

In fact I might have to get one myself! 😁

if it works out, you may see me getting two of them, one for the RF 24-105 F4L and one for a RF 70-200 F4L - both pop can sized lenses on small bodies that fit in a medium sized bag on my shoulder.

with the new tools and EV -3.2 focus aquisition capability @ f4, and DXOPL6 deep prime, the latest F4 FF zoom technology indoors may emulate the heavier more expensive f2.8 zoom technology of yesteryear - which would be good enough for me - I don't need latest f2.8 zoom technology as long as the new tools for f4 keep up with the old days of f2.8.

R2

istscott wrote:

nnowak wrote:

C M Greene wrote:

While I have no specific knowledge of what Canon plans to do with the M system in the future, I’ll be very surprised if it’s retired in less than 4 years. IMHO, it’s a very capable system in a size and weight that isn’t touched by the R system, and I think unlikely to be touched by the R system (even with the S variants rumored) due to the size of the RF mount.

It looks like the R50 just proved you wrong. It has a deeper grip than your M50 II, but is otherwise smaller and lighter.

I have an M50 MKII along with a selection of EF-M Canon and SIgma lenses. (This is all in addition to my EOS APC-C DSLRs and a collection of EF-S and EF lenses.) Given what you get from the M series in terms of size, weight and bang for the buck, I expect I’ll be using it 5 years from now. (Who know in 5-6 years time the hot new thing might be the T system with TF mount and I will just skip the R system all together 😀)

Haha, I came here to see would be first. Honestly it looks like a decent technical upgrade over the M50 so good on Canon for that. The writing was on the wall since the R10 and R7 showed up.

I'll make my own prediction and say that the M200 will get and RF version, but I have my doubts that the M6 styled camera will.

Totally agree with you, there will be a ‘viewfinderless’ entry level R100 for sure while the R version of the M6ii is a choice between the R10 and R7, depending on your budget and what your photographic needs are, resolution, portability, IBIs, etc.

aeronium wrote:

Such a compact system with compact lenses - Now being replaced by bulkier RF cameras and bigger RF-S lenses.

I own the R5 and many bigger EF/RF lenses, but my M6 II has always been a joy to carry out for casual photography and videography.

I hope Canon could could produce something as compact and capable as the M system in their RF APS-C lineup, but I'm doubtful due to the physical limitations of the mount size.

All my M stuff is turning into on a tripod product photography stuff.

I got turned on to drones !

Now I am thinking I want a camera that can fly.

Sittatunga wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Canon's #1 operating principle has always been to protect their higher end sales. Period. It's never been a question of ability, it's always been about will.

I've always had difficulty believing that bit of folklore. If Canon can make money out of fast APS-C lenses they will. Those lenses aren't so much about stealing sales from their high end as stealing sales from their competitors and making their competitors look unattractive.

But those high end APS-C lenses are also up against Canon's low end FF models so, while the £490 EF-M 32mm f/1.4 makes the £700 XF 33mm f/1.4 look too big, too heavy and too expensive, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is smaller, lighter and less than half the price of its EF-M equivalent. Canon can sell the EF-M lens because it's excellent and won't fit RF mount or DSLRs, but an RF mount version is a harder sell. From an engineering point of view, top end APS-C is just too expensive for its results compared with low end FF.

Sensor tech will keep improving and smaller sensors will keep getting better and zooms will keep getting smaller.

I won't be long before the current FF RF zooms will be considered large dinosaurs ?

nnowak wrote:

C M Greene wrote:

While I have no specific knowledge of what Canon plans to do with the M system in the future, I’ll be very surprised if it’s retired in less than 4 years. IMHO, it’s a very capable system in a size and weight that isn’t touched by the R system, and I think unlikely to be touched by the R system (even with the S variants rumored) due to the size of the RF mount.

It looks like the R50 just proved you wrong. It has a deeper grip than your M50 II, but is otherwise smaller and lighter.

I have an M50 MKII along with a selection of EF-M Canon and SIgma lenses. (This is all in addition to my EOS APC-C DSLRs and a collection of EF-S and EF lenses.) Given what you get from the M series in terms of size, weight and bang for the buck, I expect I’ll be using it 5 years from now. (Who know in 5-6 years time the hot new thing might be the T system with TF mount and I will just skip the R system all together 😀)

The huge advantage the M50II has is it can mount the Sigma 56mm !

That lens works so good on the M50II that Canon changed the mount and banned Sigma from making auto focus lenses for the Canon mirrorless cameras with the new RF mount !

Sittatunga wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Canon's #1 operating principle has always been to protect their higher end sales. Period. It's never been a question of ability, it's always been about will.

I've always had difficulty believing that bit of folklore.

Well, it's apparent in every move Canon makes!

Just watch what happens in the future (if the past isn't proof enough for you).

R2