The EOS M lineup will be addressed later in 2020 [CR1]

[padam]

RF will be the bread and butter for canon even with some APS-C cameras: R7 and a 90D equivalent.

RF is first and foremost a FF system, not APS-C.
EF-S can be adapted of course, but they will likely to not start making crop sensor "RF-S" lenses.
EF-M is the way to go if one prefers to have smaller, cheaper lenses specifically designed for APS-C sensors. They are not going to start all over once again.

Nikon has been thinking the same way (they are not going to make premium APS-C lenses, only the smaller and cheaper ones like EF-M), except using the Z-mount for both systems.

 

[Architect1776]

I really think this decision comes down to how many lenses would you really use with the M if you have an R as your main body. Personally, if I were going to be using a larger lens it would make no sense to put it on the M body.

I think a lot depends on what kind of smaller R lenses are going to be developed if there are a few nice pancake options than maybe there isn't a need for the M. But if that doesnt materialize or isn't small enough...I just wouldn't think I'd own more than 1 or 2 lenses for an M body, and if its worth it to save the space/weight on occasions that you need to then perhaps it isn't that bad.

I guess with IBIS now a smaller R lens, not real fast like M lenses are not as fast and allow for a relatively small series of APSC lenses and even FF lenses if you want to go that route. Just a larger mounting end. This is not unusual.

 

[ashmadux]

The adapted EF-S lenses are a poor (and heavy) substitute for a native lens. Canon really need to offer a higher quality standard zoom. At the moment the original EF-M 18-55 is the best that we have.

I've been using the 10-22efs for years on an M1. It's not poor anything.

The usability of the combo (and most adapted lenses) outclasses even the (too small!) 11-22. For landscapes at f7.1, every thing looks great. Turning the zoom on the extending barrel of the 11-22 has been a bad experience, so much so I'm thinking of selling that and the m50. That lens just too small and you have to do these awkward hand movements.

I understand a certain crowd once the tiniest cameras imaginable, however then we get issues like the cheapo, no weight M50 and the ridiculous shutter slap that results in soft images 90% of the time. That's why this camera is on death watch for me.

Besides that, my M1 with adapted lenses used to get so much attention nobody knew what the hell I was shooting with. It was interesting times for sure.

 

[Andy Westwood]

I was one of the first to buy the original M5 pre ordering it as soon as it was announced based on its positive pre-launch reviews on YouTube, and I have enjoyed using the M5. However, it was a little confusing soon after when Canon announced the M50 a model that sits below the flagship M5 but has an improved auto focus system over the M5 and a full articulating screen (which is far better for portrait orientation photography)

Probably because of popular factors like these the price of the M5 soon dropped heavily unlike the price of the M50 that has stayed consistent.

I like the hi-res screen on the M5 and the small compact size. I would have bough an M6II if it had a quality hi-res fully articulating screen but sadly that wasn’t to be.

An M5II would be a welcomed camera that I would buy, IBIS too would be a massive plus and also the improved spec from the M6II, but please Canon give us an improved AF system on the M5II at least as good as the M6II, keep the quality EVF and hi-res screen but make it full articulating screen.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

Please Canon, don’t cripple the M line with side swivel displays.
Those were great at their time, but not once you had used a propper photographer’s camera.
Also displays are the reason I’m referring to the R line as “toy cameras”. Those are made for selfies, right? No way moving to R once discovered the superior ergonomy of an M.

Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?

Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

Sorry admin but, no, an APS-C 52mm f2 lens is absolutely not the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2 lens, but rather of a FF 85mm f3.2 lens. I was really hoping for a 52mm lens of at least f1.4, which will be the equivalent of a FF 85mm f2.2 lens.

Sorry but, no, that's not how it works. The f-stop number is an expression of the ratio of size of the aperture diameter compared to the focal length of the lens. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the imaging sensor. Saying that the 52mm is the equivalent of 85mm doesn't make it an 85mm lens, it only makes a statement about the relative difference in capture area between APS-C and full frame. But you're still shooting with a 52mm lens, and the expression of aperture to focal length doesn't change. Similarly, the smaller imaging sensor isn't magnifying the image, just capturing less of it. The whole confusion about 1.6x "magnification" between APS-C and Full Frame is only discussing the image that arrives on the sensor, and is completely unaffected by the lens, the aperture, or the actual focal length. It only is an expression that the image that the sensor captured appeared to have been taken with an equivalently larger focal length. The camera doesn't suddenly capture less light, only less of the image that arrives at the sensor. If you don't believe me, take the same lens and try it on both an APS-C camera and a full frame camera, and spot meter the center of the frame. You'll find that the same conditions deliver the same EVs for both.

 

[kocmonabt]

I don't understand, what you are complaining about: The M6 II doesn't have a "side swivel": It uses a screen that tilts up or down only. So this should be ideal for you.

And the controls are on the right side and the left hand mostly supports the lens. No idea what you mean with "M6’s controls are all under left hand and the right supports the camera".

If the M5 II comes, I really hope it has a full articulating screen. I'm not doing much video work but I miss my "side swivel" on the M6 all the time...

Oops. I meant “controls under right hand”.
Complaining about the danger of fully articulating screen replacing the current ones. I hope they keep it as is.

 

[usern4cr]

52mm f2 equivalent to FF 85mm f2? Was that a typo?
I'd expect that kind of wishful reasoning from the MFT group, who loves to say their 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to a FF 600mm f4 lens - they might as well say a 600mm f4 lens is equivalent to a 600mm f8 lens as the aperture doesn't matter.

You should have mentioned equivalent to a FF ~85mm f3.2, using a ~1.6x crop factor. Of course, if it was an oversight, then as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, "Never Mind!".

 

[kocmonabt]

Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?

Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.

I believe I had explained it in detail in later post.
Yes, the tools available ... but I don’t see the point in going back in tech evolution. At least this is how I feel about side swivels.
I’m obviously very biased and you are free to have a different opinion. This is why there should be 2 types of cameras - one for me and one for you.

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

Tilty flippy screens are NOT a going back in tech WTF. The *only* valid complaint is they reduce how bulletproof a camera is. And to be honest, outside of a brick with a lens meant for bludgeoning enemies to death it's not THAT much of an issue.

 

[kocmonabt]

Tilty flippy screens are NOT a going back in tech WTF. The *only* valid complaint is they reduce how bulletproof a camera is. And to be honest, outside of a brick with a lens meant for bludgeoning enemies to death it's not THAT much of an issue.

Are you a M5 or M6II user?
Don’t you find their ergonomy superior to anything on the market?

 

[stevelee]

52mm f2 equivalent to FF 85mm f2? Was that a typo?
I'd expect that kind of wishful reasoning from the MFT group, who loves to say their 300mm f4 lens is equivalent to a FF 600mm f4 lens - they might as well say a 600mm f4 lens is equivalent to a 600mm f8 lens as the aperture doesn't matter.

You should have mentioned equivalent to a FF ~85mm f3.2, using a ~1.6x crop factor. Of course, if it was an oversight, then as Rosanna Rosanna Dana once said, "Never Mind!".

A 52mm lens is equivalent to a 52mm lens. The f-stop math is focal length divided by something that is the aperture, if not the actual lens opening. Sticking the lens on different cameras doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.

A court can try a kid as an adult. It could also try the kid as a Brussels sprout. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?

 

[Andy Westwood]

Before the days of me shooting with moveable screens, I admittedly liked the look of the M5 style pull out screen, being a bit of a symmetrical freak I liked the idea of the screen more or less being always in the middle of the camera body, and for landscape orientation photography that is still true.

However where the fully articulating screen shines is in portrait orientated photography, granted it isn’t as good for landscapes, pulling the screen to the side of the camera to the left of the lens isn’t as good, but still the articulated screen is a far better combination for general photography.

So, if you are still going to shoot a mixture of portrait and landscape orientation photography as many photographers will do, then the fully articulating screen is the one to go for.

If on the other side, you only ever plan to shoot landscape style photos and videos the M6II style screen may appeal more to you.

All this only ever matters if you are going to shoot using the back of the LCD screen, if you only ever plan to use the EVF then I guess it doesn’t really matter.

When shooting portrait style photos, it is so much more comfortable to look at a screen in a vertical position with the benefit of being able to then also move the screen backwards and forwards. I think you must try it to be able to fully appreciate this, it was the case with me at least!

You must shoot with them both to fully understand and appreciate this and having owned camera bodies with both styles of screens this is my opinion.

 

[Proscribo]

A 52mm lens is equivalent to a 52mm lens. The f-stop math is focal length divided by something that is the aperture, if not the actual lens opening. Sticking the lens on different cameras doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.

The "equivalence" talk is not about sticking the same lens on different cameras, it is about sticking different lenses on different cameras that produce the same output (well, a bigger sensor will likely have resolution and sharpness advantage still).

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

Are you a M5 or M6II user?
Don’t you find their ergonomy superior to anything on the market?

I own a M6 mk II along with (checks.... ) half a dozen other cameras (One of which is a Sony A7R so hey another tilty but not flippy). I would have preferred a flippy screen and LOL NO its screen isnt the best ergonomically.

Complaining about tilty flippy screens in TYOOL 2020 is just silly outside of the already stated "You need to bludgeon someone first before getting the shot" ruggedness reasoning, which IS completely valid.

 

[stevelee]

The "equivalence" talk is not about sticking the same lens on different cameras, it is about sticking different lenses on different cameras that produce the same output (well, a bigger sensor will likely have resolution and sharpness advantage still).

I don’t follow what you mean at all. Different lenses on different cameras with different sensor sizes can be analogous in different ways. For example, when people say “equivalent,” they usually just refer to angle of view. A longer lens stopped down more can have “equivalent” depth of field. Two lenses can have equivalent exposure at the same T-stop. More total light will fall on a larger sensor, everything else being equal. You can choose what things you want to be “equivalent “ up to a point, but you can’t get the same output in all respects.

 

[PHRank21]

It is dark indeed for an OVF equipped camera however with EVF a dark viewfinder isn’t an issue.
Focusing at F8.0 isn’t an issue. So...
Let’s look at the bright side: you focus at F8 and shoot at F8. no focus shift issue then

Until ISO 1600 looks as good as ISO 200-400 of current cameras, I would think twice. Whatever sensor improvements especially in this budget probably won't suffice.

 

[PHRank21]

Your obvious bias aside, I am eager to hear in your elitist opinion how this is "crippling" to a camera? What functionality is lost because of the swivel display? How is the functionality of the camera reduced by their presence? Would you also assert that the 90D is also a "toy camera" based on the presence of the swivel display? If not, what functionality was it denied? In that same lofty opinion of yours, would the 6D Mark II be considered a "toy" while the original M with the fixed screen would not?

Because as far as I'm concerned, a camera is just a tool, and a "proper photographer" has a vision, and then gets the job done using the tools he has available. Results drive that definition, not what's in the bag. There's plenty of "toy cameras" out there generating money and outstanding results for "proper photographers" who are spending their time using them instead of fussing over trivial features.

It isn't so much this but the fact that Canon in recent years has catered to vloggers and videographers. Then the fanboys start to wave it like it's something everyone needs, but look at the amount of backlash Fuji has got from still photographers for utilizing a similar screen on the XT-4.

 

[SecureGSM]

Until ISO 1600 looks as good as ISO 200-400 of current cameras, I would think twice. Whatever sensor improvements especially in this budget probably won't suffice.

yeah. good light outdoors.. up to ISO 1800 I guess we are safe on APS-C

 

[TinTin]

Sticking the lens on different cameras doesn't change the laws of optics. Some sensors are bigger than others. Some are smaller. The former will record more of the image circle, and the latter will record less of it.

That is a salient point, isn't it?

A lens designed for a full frame sensor will produce an image circle to enclose that sensor. A crop sensor with that same lens is only making use of the central part of its image circle; if the outside part of the aperture of the lens were to be obscured, effectively giving it a smaller aperture (and, hence, changing its f-number), the lens could still produce an image circle large enough to cover a crop sensor, but it would no longer cover a full frame sensor.

The point is often made that, using a lens designed for full frame on a crop frame camera is using only the central portion of the lens and thus avoids some of the aberrations at the edge of the lens.

Presumably, a lens designed specifically for crop sensor cameras will produce a smaller image circle, just sufficient to cover the sensor (but not big enough to cover a full frame sensor), so the entire light-gathering power of that lens is delivered to the smaller area, making it a "brighter" lens (in a T-stop kind of way) than it would have been had it covered the full frame image circle.