Lifespan of my beloved M6 Mark II?

[rz64]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

Yes, I have also noticed that there are new lenses (to come), which are interesting for apsc.
But since there were no bright zooms for the M I had (inevitably) started learning to shoot with primes. And after several years of use I recognized that shooting with primes is mostly more fun than shooting with zooms. And it results in the best possibly IQ.

As a comparison, here are my "estimated durations of use":
11-22: rarely, more often when traveling
15-45: very rarely
16: very often, despite its size, great IQ
22: sometimes
32: often, great IQ
56: very often, great IQ
55-200: only very rarely, mostly replaced by the next lens
EF70-200: often, despite its size, great IQ

For my shooting I don't need better AF or higher burst rates, everything is just fine.

 

[matteokeary]

Agree that the lenses make / break the job, and it all depends on your tolerance for (slow aperture / limited range of capture perspective / sharpness tradeoffs).

On my recent trip to SE Asia, I brought and frequently carried a variety of lenses, including the 32/1.4 and 22/2.0, but mostly used the 11-22 and 18-150 for versatility for travel photography, mostly with a group of friends who have a limited tolerance for my photo-based shenanigans. I could get basically all the shots I wanted, on the fly, with the occasional lens swap between the two. I don't mind cranking up the ISO when needed, and the 3-dial M6ii is certainly great for my shooting style, with shutter, aperture, and ISO controls at the ready (though I do wish I could set ISO to the top dial, instead of just the back... would be closer to how I have/had the 5D4 or 6D set up).

I don't have the 56 Sigma yet, just a manual focus TTArtisan 1.2 that I should try more often, maybe on an outing with the 32 & 22.

Best, Teo

 

[Analog4Ever]

But.... cameras don't last forever.

My M2 is still going strong as ever. Same for my 5D Mark 2. Even my G1 still fires up though the filter array is odd, and the lens tends to produce CA.

Just keep your gear clean and don't expose it to extremes. No harm in buying a backup if it eases your mind. Good Luck!

 

[matteokeary]

A bit more on-topic, perhaps: I did buy a M50ii as an M-body backup for my M6ii. It is a cute "mini-SLR" style body, and the images are plenty good, but with only a single functional dial it is a quite different shooting experience.

Teo

 

[KEG]

I bought a new battery for my 2012 Lumix G3 and my EOS M3 (2015) is still going strong.

The batteries are easily available and I always store my cameras with charged battery.

 

[KEG]

I bought a Lumix G100D just to have updated M43 camera, it has most of the functionality of M6 mk I.

 

[Greg Edwards]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

 

[Sittatunga]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

 

[StrugglingforLight]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

 

[nnowak]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

 

[AbuMahendra]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

If the M6 II with its 32MP on APS-C begins to be diffraction limited at around f/5.6, I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor.

 

[Sittatunga]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

If the M6 II with its 32MP on APS-C begins to be diffraction limited at around f/5.6, I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor.

Not very different when you look at the sensel pitches; 3.19μm for the M6 II versus 2.99μm for the G9 II would give you a value around f/5.6*(2.99/3.19) = f/5.2 or about 1/5th of a stop wider for a 25MPx micro 4/3 sensor compared with a 32MPx Canon APS-C sensor.

 

[Sittatunga]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.

 

[nnowak]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

If the M6 II with its 32MP on APS-C begins to be diffraction limited at around f/5.6, I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor.

There is no such thing as a diffraction "limit". Diffraction occurs at every aperture on every lens. The only thing that changes is whether or not the sensor has the resolution to record that diffraction. An image sensor is not really any different from a ruler. Imagine if you had two rulers, but one had millimeter increments and the other only had centimeter increments. Now, try to measure the width of a USB cable. You might get a value of 3mm with the millimeter ruler, but you would get a value of zero with the centimeter ruler. The USB cable did not cease to exist just because the centimeter ruler was too coarse to measure it.

Going a step further, if pixel counts are the same, you will have identical diffraction levels at equivalent apertures and focal lengths. A 32MP m4/3 camera mated to a 25mm f/1.1 lens would have the exact same diffraction as the M6 II mated to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4

 

[AbuMahendra]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

If the M6 II with its 32MP on APS-C begins to be diffraction limited at around f/5.6, I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor.

There is no such thing as a diffraction "limit". Diffraction occurs at every aperture on every lens. The only thing that changes is whether or not the sensor has the resolution to record that diffraction. An image sensor is not really any different from a ruler. Imagine if you had two rulers, but one had millimeter increments and the other only had centimeter increments. Now, try to measure the width of a USB cable. You might get a value of 3mm with the millimeter ruler, but you would get a value of zero with the centimeter ruler. The USB cable did not cease to exist just because the centimeter ruler was too coarse to measure it.

Going a step further, if pixel counts are the same, you will have identical diffraction levels at equivalent apertures and focal lengths. A 32MP m4/3 camera mated to a 25mm f/1.1 lens would have the exact same diffraction as the M6 II mated to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4

You may wish to acquaint yourself with the term Diffraction-Limited-Aperture before going off on a long treatease. You either knew what was meant or, evidently, you didn't. Of course, the effect of diffraction is continuous rather than discrete or binary.

 

[Greg Edwards]

Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".

However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.

If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.

That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.

I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.

Maybe, but the current resolution is enough for me.

The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.

Fair point for some people, but I'm not interested in FF - it doesn't align with what I want in a camera system.

 

[rz64]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.

The topic of this thread is the question "lifespan of my beloved M6ii?".

Strangely, once more, the answer is similar to: "You'd besser use FF".

Obviously, R-users don't understand that M-users want to keep their M-cameras and use them as long as possible.
With your combination R8+RF 28-70 you carry about 1 kg. My M6 with the 22mm is about the half. Surely, I am restricted to 35mm, but I have a perfect small system. Even all of my other combinations (expect M6+70-200) remain lighter than your combination.

Additionaly, you could also compare the costs.

M is small, light, affordable and powerful.

 

[Greg Edwards]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.

The topic of this thread is the question "lifespan of my beloved M6ii?".

Strangely, once more, the answer is similar to: "You'd besser use FF".

Yep. It's so predictable on camera forums. It's as if FF is a holy grail that we should all aspire to. But it's simply not the case for everyone.

Obviously, R-users don't understand that M-users want to keep their M-cameras and use them as long as possible.
With your combination R8+RF 28-70 you carry about 1 kg. My M6 with the 22mm is about the half. Surely, I am restricted to 35mm, but I have a perfect small system. Even all of my other combinations (expect M6+70-200) remain lighter than your combination.

Additionaly, you could also compare the costs.

M is small, light, affordable and powerful.

In terms of functionality and volume in a camera bag, that Sigma could absolutely replace all of the above-mentioned EF-M primes. But, I for one, don't carry a bag full of lenses around with me wherever I go. I might take them all on holiday, but I select which one I need for a particular day. Often, I stick the 22mm on and stuff the camera in a pocket or small bag. Good luck doing that with a FF and with 166mm of lens poking our the front of it.

This is one reason I'm considering going down to m43. Even more compact when comparing similar reach to ASPC or FF.

 

[Sittatunga]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.

The topic of this thread is the question "lifespan of my beloved M6ii?".

Strangely, once more, the answer is similar to: "You'd besser use FF".

Obviously, R-users don't understand that M-users want to keep their M-cameras and use them as long as possible.
With your combination R8+RF 28-70 you carry about 1 kg. My M6 with the 22mm is about the half. Surely, I am restricted to 35mm, but I have a perfect small system. Even all of my other combinations (expect M6+70-200) remain lighter than your combination.

Additionaly, you could also compare the costs.

M is small, light, affordable and powerful.

I've got a small herd of EOS M cameras. I wish there were a modern counterpart and I have no plans to replace them with RF-S or X mount because those cameras are either too big and expensive or cut too many corners. I like small, light, affordable and powerful, but think full-frame lenses are better value for money if I'm spending beyond about £400 per lens new. YMMV

I don't have a 28-70mm, I'd prefer the 24-50mm for size and usefulness but I don't have that either as my EF-M 11-22mm is better for my purposes - it's wider, stabilised and pocketable. I was trying to point out that nnowak's suggestion of the Sigma 17-40mm APS-C lens is even less of a replacement for EOS M than an R8 plus the equivalent (smaller, lighter and better specified) RF 28-70mm is. You need to use that Sigma lens on a bigger and heavier APS-C camera than the full-frame R8 if you want a stabilised image (& it's not available in EF-M mount even if you don't) and it's a big, heavy lens for APS-C anyway. All I can say about longevity is that my M cameras are between 5½ and 12½ years old and still going strong.

 

[rz64]

My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?

The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.

The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.

This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?

Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.

The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.

Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.

As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.

• Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
• Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
• Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
• Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
• Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g

Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.

I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.

The topic of this thread is the question "lifespan of my beloved M6ii?".

Strangely, once more, the answer is similar to: "You'd besser use FF".

Obviously, R-users don't understand that M-users want to keep their M-cameras and use them as long as possible.
With your combination R8+RF 28-70 you carry about 1 kg. My M6 with the 22mm is about the half. Surely, I am restricted to 35mm, but I have a perfect small system. Even all of my other combinations (expect M6+70-200) remain lighter than your combination.

Additionaly, you could also compare the costs.

M is small, light, affordable and powerful.

I've got a small herd of EOS M cameras. I wish there were a modern counterpart and I have no plans to replace them with RF-S or X mount because those cameras are either too big and expensive or cut too many corners. I like small, light, affordable and powerful, but think full-frame lenses are better value for money if I'm spending beyond about £400 per lens new. YMMV

I don't have a 28-70mm, I'd prefer the 24-50mm for size and usefulness but I don't have that either as my EF-M 11-22mm is better for my purposes - it's wider, stabilised and pocketable. I was trying to point out that nnowak's suggestion of the Sigma 17-40mm APS-C lens is even less of a replacement for EOS M than an R8 plus the equivalent (smaller, lighter and better specified) RF 28-70mm is. You need to use that Sigma lens on a bigger and heavier APS-C camera than the full-frame R8 if you want a stabilised image (& it's not available in EF-M mount even if you don't) and it's a big, heavy lens for APS-C anyway. All I can say about longevity is that my M cameras are between 5½ and 12½ years old and still going strong.

Thanks for your additional comment