Opinion: EOS-M transition that never was

I'm going to take your idea and find a coat with bigger pockets or maybe sew a big pocket in an old coat
How about a small colt bag?
Then you can add a battery and a 50mm for example.
(That's my way right now with 200D+EF40mm+EF24+ a potential 3rd lens)
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
This was originally part of the article on the EOS-M discontinued, but then it grew to the point it made sense to unpack it into its own article. You can read about the EOS-M being quietly discontinued here. Be warned, there is not a lot said in this article that is pro-Canon, but I’ll do

See full article...
It always looked to me Canon had a strange approach to market with the M line.

I was about to invest into it, I would have liked smaller cameras and lenses to bring with me when the 5D and heavy EF lenses are not justified (and I hate to use phones), but I was waiting for an M5 Mk II, which never appeared. I would have liked an "high-end" small cameras, insted of "low-end" small cameras like the 200D or the actual RF ones.

Also, my sister was looking for something better to replace her G5X camera, and being able to borrow some lenses from me, but she was unsure about the M future as well.

We waited enough to understand better Canon plans, just to discover they weren't really interested in developing a smaller form factor ILC. So we decided Fuji was a better bet, although it meant a wholly different system. My sister got an X100V - something Canon has nothing alike.

I don't believe RF APS-C camera can become small enough, the mount diameter forbids it. And the "tapered" lenses ported from the M mount look funny. I understand in the current market keeping alive two different lines is probably too expensive with not enough returns, maybe it's better to concentrate efforts on a single sector, leaving different ones to other brands, which already cover them better than Canon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
You have it reversed really. at the time of the M mount, Canon didn't even begin to look at the RF mount that came later.

I suspect Canon wishes they put a larger mount on the EF-M system as well, becuase it would have saved them some headaches.
Do you know that for a fact? My guess, and it is a guess, is that as part of the process in approving the M-system, there was considerable discussion within Canon about how large the mount should be and whether the comm protocol should differ from EF. They then loudly proclaimed about how the m-mount would never be used for FF, unlike what Sony did with their mount. Again a guess, there was a struggle going on between competing groups within Canon and the M-proponents won...for a while.

Update with another guess: The driving force for the R-mount was Canon learning what Nikon was going to do with their Z-mount. Given that, the M-mount just wasn't good enough.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Personally, I had almost every single EOS-M camera…
Many good points in the article! One observation is that it’s written from the perspective of a ‘gear head’, which makes it very appropriate for CR but perhaps less relevant in terms of the market.

If someone is driving a 2016 Honda and it’s time for them to buy a new car, many will just go to their local Honda dealer and end up buying a 2023/2024 model. There’s no ‘transition’, it’s simply a matter of buying the current version of what they’re already familiar with.

Those of us who are heavily invested in gear, with multiple bodies and lenses, do care about such things. We're a small fraction of Canon's customer base.

Before anyone suggests that there are only 1.6 lenses per camera, that's correct – but how many users purchased more than one camera body over the 11 years the EOS-M system was out?
Probably some. But how many of those just bought the additional M body (or bodies) with the kit lens? When I bought my M6, I got the 15-45 with it. When I bought my M6II, I got the 15-45 + EVF kit because it was <$100 more than the body only. For many early adopters (M/M2/M3), the 15-45 that was bundled with bodies starting in 2016 (the M3 launched with an M18-55 kit) offered a wider angle in a smaller and lighter package. Before anyone brings up the switch to a plastic mount, that's something that probably only us gear-heads really notice or care about.

I've always known that this was going to be a problem for Canon, I wrote about it a lot on CanonNews – and yeah, it's still a problem.
Is it, though? Looking at BCN's top 10 sellers for the past few months, the R50 (both colors) and R10 have been there consistently as dual lens kits. So APS-C R bodies seem to be selling just fine, simply taking the place of the M50 as Canon's best-selling cameras (at least, in Japan). So while you may perceive this as a 'problem for Canon', I suggest it's more of a problem for you, me and others who are invested in the M system but not a problem for Canon, at all.

That all being said – which EOS-M camera and lenses were your favorite kit? Mine was certainly the EOS-M M6 Mark II and the EF-M 18-150, 11-22 and 32mm. It was also a modified camera to take both infrared and color images.
I like both the M6II and the M6 (though I still have an M2, as well). My most-used lenses are the M11-22 and M18-150. A prior post of yours reignited my flirtation with IR, and I should have my converted M6 back from Kolari in a few days. I went with full spectrum and a diverse set of filters – UV bandpass filter, five IR long pass filters, the 'blue IR' dual bandpass, and the broad-spectrum IR Chrome filter (I recall wanting to try Aerochrome in the 80's but never getting a chance). I also got the UV/IR cut filter that replicates the hot mirror that Kolari replaced with clear glass in the conversion process.


Filters.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
It is a shame Fuji has let the X-E line fall by the wayside. The X-E4 seemed like they wanted it to be a bridge for smartphone users who still want their camera to be small. They removed several physical controls and made the grip nonexistent. My old X-E2 had the perfect size and handling for APS-C. I was considering an a6000 at the time and I'm glad I went the Fuji route, but Sony is definitely the only APS-C manufacturer focused on small bodies now. Even many m4/3 cameras have grown to be grossly large for their sensor size.

I'm all about the min-max life. If I'm going to carry a dedicated camera somewhere, it needs to be so good that I'm willing to deal with the burden, or so small that I don't have a problem carrying it even if I don't use it much while I'm out. Otherwise, why bother? Image quality is paramount for all of my landscape shooting, and I transitioned to RF from Fuji last year as the 14-35L and 24-105L were sufficiently attractive to warrant the slight size increase over my 10-24 and 16-55. It's sad (for Fuji) as the R5+24-105L is only marginally larger than the X-T4+16-55 and the handling and IQ is noticeably improved. If I'm willing to carry the X-T4 setup somewhere, I'm willing to carry the R5, and therein lies "the problem" for Fuji.

If I'm going to accept the compromises of APS-C, it needs to offer benefits over my FF system, and Fuji just isn't doing enough of that. Sadly, neither is Canon. The RF-S system is a joke, providing dead end lenses that will leave you wanting larger, heavier, more expensive options (which is Canon's strategy from the sound of the pro bono business analysts here). The whole point of buying a smaller camera is to use smaller lenses and a smaller bag with it, is it not? Or is everyone going to parrot the tired "MOAR REACH CUZ CROP!" reasoning to me? I can't imagine buying an APS-C camera just to use big FF lenses on it simply because I can get higher resolution on a cropped part of the image circle, but I also am not trying to take bird pictures so that use case means nothing to me.

If one is going to use a smaller sensor, the entire system should be smaller. Canon doesn't offer that if you want anything besides gimped feature sets and dark, cheap kit lenses. Fuji still has some capable small-ish bodies like the X-S20, and the X-T5 is appreciably smaller than the X-T4 (though not what I'd call small), but their newer lenses have grown larger, even the primes which are excellent but start to lose the size advantage. An X-E2 with the old 35/1.4 was absolutely tiny, about the same size as an X100V with a lens hood on it. I want to shrink my Fuji setup to an X-T5 and a few primes, but I have a hard time justifying the spend when I might still leave it at home the same times I'd consider leaving the R5 setup at home. It'd be more about simply having somewhat native primes that Canon has yet to grace us with, in a slightly smaller package. Sony is producing positively tiny bodies for APS-C and FF but they are said to be ergonomically challenged and "soulless" tools. At least they seem motivated to make their own lens lineup smaller, while Fuji is making theirs larger.

All I can say (beyond what I've already said) is that right now seems like a better time than ever to buy a FF camera because they are as small and capable as they've ever been, and it's harder than ever to make a value proposition for APS-C. I would not recommend Canon APS-C to anyone right now and with the direction RF-S is going, I probably never will. It's going to come down to lens selection and pricing, when considering Fuji vs Sony, unless you need top tier AF, then Sony is the obvious choice. I'm sure Fuji has capable market analysts, but it would seem they're still deciding to make larger and more expensive lenses and bodies, blurring the lines with FF, where you stand to benefit substantially. Still, we have more choices than ever, which makes the buying decision even harder, especially for new shooters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I never really got on board with EOS M until the M6 II, which served me well for social media videos and even birding with the EVF. It was the first camera of the range that felt high end but also compact.

It's a shame it's gone because Canon no longer has cameras where small size is prioritised. The lower end RF cameras are small because they can be, not because they were made to be. Canon wants to make their cheaper cameras versatile so I doubt we'll see a truly compact-focused, EVF-less (or Sony A6000-style corner EVF) RF mount camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
As much as I loved the M6 II and the M lenses I had and the nice option of the EF adapter, the R7 is better in almost every way. The AF is faster, more accurate, and more reliable. The camera is easier to manipulate (for me at least having large hands), battery life is better, image quality is better, and low light performance is better. I actually, bought my R7 and planned on keeping my M6, but once I saw the performance gap between the M6 & R7 I sold my M6 immediately. I've only looked back once or twice where a smaller form factor would have been nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
How about a small colt bag?
Then you can add a battery and a 50mm for example.
(That's my way right now with 200D+EF40mm+EF24+ a potential 3rd lens)
It might not work but I saw you can use it with your belt. I'll try one on each hip and hope the weight doesn't make everything fall down :ROFLMAO:
 
Upvote 0
If Canon went smaller, or larger, they may have succeeded. Instead, they put themselves in a strange state of purgatory.

What was the primary purpose of the M line? Most people I've talked with felt it was largely to bring in new customers seeking a physically smaller option than the existing APC-S or FF.

I suppose we can really only speculate on the primary purpose of the EOS-M, but a size/weight advantage was certainly to be a benefit. This selling point is where I think many manufacturers, including Canon, got it wrong. From the beginning, mirrorless was always touted as being more compact than DSLRs. It was a significant component in their marketing campaign, but it never panned out to the extent that justified it as a differentiating feature from the DSLR systems. In other words, they went smaller, but not enough to positively impact the photographic process.

I was someone who was highly anticipating being able to physically downsize my 5D4 and lens lineup for the "smaller" RF system. Ironically, here I am now fully immersed in the RF line and with a 28-70 f/2 lens that is historically larger than anything else in that focal range lol. I think the M-line experiment suggests we (as in people willing to spend $$$$$ on camera gear) care more about image quality than size. If someone went 30yrs into the future and brought you back a camera the size of a toaster and a lens the size of a loaf of bread, we would strap on a full-body harness and get to shooting. With that said, I still see tremendous appeal for a camera that is even "nearly" pocketable so I can bring with me on casual outings, while still being able to pump out high quality images.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0