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

[Tanguy]

I am looking forward to see more information about the M series and mostly the upgrade of the M5 because I like to have both the EVF and small flash incorporated in the body. Don't want to have a portable flash like needed on the R series

 

[melgross]

I use the OVF more than live view, so it stays folded in or out most of the time. Out when shooting and in when in transport usually. Solar eclipses don’t come that often, but it is nice to have the option of shooting them, as well as more common events.

I’m not denying the usefulness. It’s just that those concerned with breakage have a good point too.

 

[stevelee]

I’m not denying the usefulness. It’s just that those concerned with breakage have a good point too.

Nor do I deny that a folded out screen is more vulnerable. Since we basically agree on things, I’m wondering why we are having a string of messages that seem to be debating something.

I am probably more careful with the camera when shooting than when I am not paying any attention to it. That would suggest why I have my perspective on this.

 

[melgross]

Nor do I deny that a folded out screen is more vulnerable. Since we basically agree on things, I’m wondering why we are having a string of messages that seem to be debating something.

I am probably more careful with the camera when shooting than when I am not paying any attention to it. That would suggest why I have my perspective on this.

Too much time on our hands (or fingertips)?

 

[PiezoSwitch]

Apparently the M series is selling quite well in Asia, enough to maintain its economic viability. The smaller form factor is obviously a huge part of the appeal as it is for me. I have already switched over from my EF bodies over to RF and I don’t mind a 2 mount system especially given the size difference in the lenses. The M series lenses are relatively inexpensive so it’s not a huge financial burden to maintaining 2 systems and I’ve kept some EF glass that I can use on both.

 

[SteveC]

Apparently the M series is selling quite well in Asia, enough to maintain its economic viability. The smaller form factor is obviously a huge part of the appeal as it is for me. I have already switched over from my EF bodies over to RF and I don’t mind a 2 mount system especially given the size difference in the lenses. The M series lenses are relatively inexpensive so it’s not a huge financial burden to maintaining 2 systems and I’ve kept some EF glass that I can use on both.

EF glass is part of my strategy. I expect to have very little RF glass for the first few years.

 

[koenkooi]

EF glass is part of my strategy. I expect to have very little RF glass for the first few years.

RF glass is in the "What to do when I win a million in the lottery" column for me at this time Renting RF lenses when I need them is still a lot cheaper.

 

[SteveC]

RF glass is in the "What to do when I win a million in the lottery" column for me at this time Renting RF lenses when I need them is still a lot cheaper.

I expect I'll get the kit with the RF 24-105 L, but I may spring for the wide EF L zoom (17-??mm if memory serves) to use on both M and R series. I've already got 100+ mm covered with my EF 100-400 II L.

 

[brad-man]

I expect I'll get the kit with the RF 24-105 L, but I may spring for the wide EF L zoom (17-??mm if memory serves) to use on both M and R series. I've already got 100+ mm covered with my EF 100-400 II L.

You are undoubtedly referring to the EF 16-35 f/4L IS. One of Canon's must haves...

 

[SteveC]

You are undoubtedly referring to the EF 16-35 f/4L IS. One of Canon's must haves...

Yeah, that's the one. (Unless you've just gotta have it in f/2.8). There seem to be a variety of Canon lenses that start at 16 or 17mm, for some reason, and I get them confused a lot! (Most of them are discontinued, but apparently there's still a 17-40mm f/4L out there, that I *infer* is older and not as high a quality optically.)

 

[OneSnark]

Yeah, that's the one. (Unless you've just gotta have it in f/2.8). There seem to be a variety of Canon lenses that start at 16 or 17mm, for some reason, and I get them confused a lot! (Most of them are discontinued, but apparently there's still a 17-40mm f/4L out there, that I *infer* is older and not as high a quality optically.)

I have the 17-40/4L. I shot with for a few years, but I found it was particularly soft wide open. Paired it with a 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.

Now, I primarily use a 10-22/EF-S and a 24-105/4L and am pretty happy with them. Along the line I bought the 16-35/2.8L-I (on sale. . .as it was going out of production) and have been quite content. ESPECIALLY when I shoot it at F4. I use this lens primarily for low light situations with ISO 3200+ shots.

If I was building a kit today, I would definitely get a 16-35/4L for a FF camera. On APS-C; I really like the wide end of the 10-22; which pairs nice with the Canon 24-xx options.

- - - - - -

So I have a X0D with a flippy screen, and a G7x-II with a simple flip up screen. Honestly. . . I am happy with both. If I have my "big" camera out and about, I am probably taking some care with my shots. . . . and quite often I use the screen at an odd angle so I can setup a shot without being a contortionist. This mode is very useful for selphs; flower shots; and for eclipses of various sorts. It's a nice option. And a strong selling point in my mind.

The G7X is more of the camera used for casual shooting; the simple flip screen suffices. NOTE: The flip screen is critical for selphie mode. Would not buy a camera without that capability at this point.

 

[epic.one]

I wonder what the plans for the M?00 line is. I've very happy with my M6II, but I miss the smallness of the M1. So an M200 sized camera, with the M6II sensor, IBIS and digic X be ideal. Or an M6III identical to the M6II, but with a proper tilty-flippy screen

That will be an M300, the point of the Mxxx is the price point so that camera will arrive once economies of scale has materialised.

 

[epic.one]

Good. I was just playing with my M6 II last night. It is a heckuva camera. In my opinion, Canon has the opposite issue that they are known for here, they now have a great camera but only ok lenses (not bad, but when you are used to "L" glass, there is room for improvement).

So, please, bring on the very good (ex...EFs 17-55 or EFs 15-85 equivalents) zoom lenses. I could easily see a 100-300. The M6 II actually pairs very nicely with my 70-300 L. But a smaller version would be great (300/5.6 = 54 mm, so maybe 55 or 58 mm front threads).

Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.

 

[epic.one]

If this M5ii rumor is true I don't see the need for an M50ii unless is goes down market and they consolidate the mxxx line.

There will still be a need... M50 Mk2 will have inferior build quality to the M5, and it will also have the tilting screen. I don't think it is getting IBIS however.

 

[epic.one]

I would like to see an M-mount body with the sensor from the M6II, the DIGIC X processor, IBIS, a really good EVF, tilty-flippy screen, a single CFExpress card slot, and using the LP-E6N battery. Combine that with the upcoming EF-M 100-400 (which is really a 120-360), or use an adapter to use it with any EF-S or EF glass.

Lets wait a few years. I'm also waiting in line for this. Already have the EF-M 18-55, 22mm, and 32mm.

 

[epic.one]

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.

That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.

 

[docsmith]

Good point, but unless Canon breaks their self-imposed design rule of having all EF-M lenses use the same diameter - this won't happen. I suspect this is why the EF-M 52mm is only an F/2 instead of f/1.8.

They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.

But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.

 

[BillB]

That EF-M 18-55mm was better than the EF-S 18-55mm MkIII then Canon realised their "mistake" and stopped making them and replaced it with the cheap 15-45mm. I'm looking to Tamron to fill in the gap with the best EF-M standard zoom with f/2.8 at the widest end.

The EF-M 18-55 is still available.

 

[SteveC]

They definitely have their share of lenses with 52 mm threads. I count the 18-55 and 55-200.

But the 11-22 and 18-150 are 55 mm threads. The 22 mm, 28 mm macro, and 32 f/1.4 are 43 mm threads. The 15-45 is 49 mm thread.

He wasn't talking of the thread diameter but rather the outside, physical diameter of the lens. For the M series, that's always the same.

 

[brad-man]

He wasn't talking of the thread diameter but rather the outside, physical diameter of the lens. For the M series, that's always the same.

That would be 2.4"