Canon confirms EOS M system is not dead after all
Mar 15, 2023
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
Last month, when Canon announced the EOS R50, the world (including us here at DIYP) thought this was the final nail in the coffin for Canon’s EOS M APS-C mirrorless camera system. It’s been dying for a few years, with little-to-no updates and not really any word from Canon about what was happening with it. And the EOS R50 does look very much like an EOS M50 Mark II successor.
It appears, though, that the assumption was wrong. In the recent interview with Photo Trend at CP+ 2023 – the same one where Canon confirmed the EOS R1 was in development – they quite clearly stated that the EOS M system is not dead. At least, not as far as they’re concerned.
Question: The EOS R50 is one of your newer cameras. How was it inspired by the EOS M50? Does it sign the end of the EOS-M range?
Tetsuji Kiyomi: The particularity of the R50 was that we wanted to release a compact and light product. For its part, the EOS M range, thanks to the reduced diameter of the EF-M mount, could be even smaller and lighter.
Thus, compactness and lightness are therefore two common points between the APS-C models of the EOS R range and those of the EOS M series.
However, the size of the M-series enclosures is even smaller, and there is still a strong demand for this from our customers. This means that we will continue to offer the EOS M series as we need to meet this high demand.
So, it looks like Canon still might have plans for the EOS M system. Or perhaps, they think they can still make a little more money out of the EOS M system before they ultimately decide to pull the plug entirely. It is true that the EF-M mount allows for even smaller and lighter cameras than the RF-M mount, but is Canon really going to continue releasing new bodies and lenses that compete directly with their new EOS R mirrorless lineup?
I think that the answer to that question is probably no. After all, Canon faced a lot of criticism for years for allegedly intentionally crippling the video capabilities of their EF mount DSLRs so as not to cannibalise video camera sales. Now that Canon has sort of been forced to add advanced features to their mirrorless cameras, thanks to competition from Panasonic, Sony and, to a lesser extent, Nikon.
The Canon EOS M system is still a very big income generator for Canon. It might not be all that popular in much of the world, but in Asian countries, the Canon EOS M50 and its Mark II successor have been Canon’s top-selling cameras for a long time now.
I expect that we may see existing models continue to be made until demand ultimately declines, but I don’t think we’ll be hearing any new camera or lens announcements in the EOS M system coming in the future. And once those sales do decline, I think Canon will still be clinging onto the “EOS M’s not dead!” line until any existing stock finally sells.
Is Canon wasting its time with EOS M?
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Related Posts
Canon pretty much confirms EOS M is dead as it announces the Canon EOS R50 APS-C mirrorless camera
Comparing the Canon EOS R, EOS RP, EOS R5 and EOS R6 head-to-head for portraits
Canon exec confirms EOS R with IBIS is coming and not killing off EOS M
Canon EOS 90D and EOS M6 Mark II user manuals released – confirms no 24fps video
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
26 responses to “Canon confirms EOS M system is not dead after all”
If you’re reading this article, the EOS M system is not for you.
It’s created, designed, and marketed to non-gearheads who want a single camera and a lens or two (maybe three at the most) that are compact, lightweight, and affordable. They’ll use this camera for the next 4-5 years without worrying if something newer/better/shinier with a more impressive spec sheet has been introduced. They’ll be happy with the photos it gets for family events, vacation, holidays, etc. that their phones can’t.
As long as Canon continues to sell more EOS M cameras and lenses than EOS R lenses and bodies, the EOS M line isn’t going anywhere.
But the EOS R50 is also geared towards that audience, too, no? I mean, it’s pretty much a straight up replacement for the EOS M50 II. :)
As far as the body goes, true. However, the elephant in the room is the question of RF-S lenses. How committed is Canon to making them? Do they really want to segment the RF market by going very far down that path?
They’ll make whatever RF-S lenses they think they HAVE to make and nothing more, just like EF-S lenses. How many EF-S primes have there ever been? How many constant aperture EF-S zooms? I can count the combined answer to both of those questions on one hand.
No, the R50 is what the gearheads wanted the M50 Mark II (and most of the EOS M system) to be. A starter camera into a progressively more professional/enthusiast system with larger, faster, longer, more expensive lenses and camera bodies. The R50 is what the gearheads thought the M series was, in their minds, supposed to be but what they considered it had always failed miserably at being.
That’s never been what Canon decided the EOS M series is about.
The R50 is neither as compact nor as affordable as the M50 Mark II, which is still in Canon’s current catalog and probably will be for quite a while. They’re both about the same weight, but the M50 Mark II with a better kit lens is still $100 cheaper and slightly smaller than the R50 with a very underwhelming kit lans.
EOS M cameras are not meant to be entries into anything else. They’re not “get this until you can afford that better one, then get it until the next even better one, then keep this as a backup to that…”
They’re not about building an “arsenal” of photo gear. Or about having a small “travel camera” or “vlogging cam” on which, in addition to your larger, more expensive main bodies, all of your other lenses, many of them very high end, can mount.
They’re aimed at people interested in buying a small, lightweight, and affordable camera, a lens or two or maybe even three (none of them larger than 61 mm in diameter), and then using them to take photographs for the next few years without worrying about what other cameras or lenses are out there.
That’s the kinds of folks who are buying the vast majority of EOS M cameras and lenses in world areas where most of them are sold.
That’s what the gearheads in North America and Western Europe, which includes pretty much everyone reading this, have never understood about the entire EOS M system.
Actually, the only thing anybody wanted out of the EOS M50 (And M50 Mark II) that it didn’t offer was uncropped 4K video. Other than that, it was a fantastic camera. I would have bought a couple myself for some specific uses, but the massive crop when shooting 4K made the used sensor area even smaller than Micro Four Thirds. So, it was pretty useless for me.
The rest of your rant I’m not even going to address. Your opinion is your opinion – despite having no basis in fact.
“Actually, the only thing anybody wanted out of the EOS M50 (And M50 Mark II) that it didn’t offer was uncropped 4K video.”
No, that might be the only thing *you* wanted that it didn’t offer, but I’ve heard plenty of other things which other folks wanted that the M5 Mark II didn’t offer. Things like fast, constant aperture EF-M zoom lenses, or long telephoto EF-M lenses. Things like faster stills frame rates and a deeper buffer than the higher priced M6 Mark II that had recently been discontinued. All kinds of things.
“So, it was pretty useless for me.”
I think that’s what I said at the beginning. It’s not for you. Get over it.
Again, those for whom Canon created the EOS M line and to whom they primarily market it probably aren’t interested in uncropped 4K at all. If you want uncropped 4K, Canon has plenty of products capable of that which they would be more than happy to sell to you. But not at the price point they sell EOS M cameras to millions of buyers who aren’t interested in 4K video.
The EOS-M system is the best selling mirrorless camera system in the world. There’s a reason for that. It gives the largest number of potential ILC buyers the things they do want at a price they’re willing to pay without driving up the cost by providing things most of them do not require to pull the trigger on a purchase. Naturally, there are some potential buyers who want more but also want the same or cheaper price. Plenty of folks would be happy to buy a new Chevy Corvette for the price of a Chevy Spark, too. That doesn’t mean they are going to get it.
Canon is the market leader for interchangeable lens cameras, and has been for decades and by a considerable margin, precisely because they produce products with different capabilities at different pricing points that meet the expectations of those who buy those products at each respective price. Canon knows that more people will buy a lower priced EOS M5 Mark II without uncropped 4K than would buy a more expensive (and probably larger and hotter running) EOS M5 mark II that offers uncropped 4K.
That was the only thing that Canon’s target market – given that they marked the EOS M50 in much of the world as the ultimate vlogging camera – wanted. That’s who the EOS M50 – the camera we’re talking about, not the entire EOS M ine – was marketed towards. So, yes, M50 owers were
Get over what, exactly? What do you think I’m not “over”? Actually, you know what, don’t bother answering that question. I’m done wasting my time talking with you.
Wrong. Everybody wanted exactly that out of the EOS M50 and especially the mark II. Uncropped 4K. Why? Because all content creators wanted a Canon m50 at some point and they influence people, because they are literally influencers. Now everyone wants a Sony zv-e10.
EOS M was not designed for content creators. That’s not the market for which Canon has ever aimed the EOS M system.
Expecting any EOS M camera to fit that role is like buying a Toyota Camry and then complaining it can’t haul what an F-150 can and claiming “everyone” interested in buying the new model year Camry wanted it to have the hauling capacity of an F-150 pickup truck.
Canon sells plenty of products that can do 4K video but the EOS M50 Mark II is not one of them. Just as Toyota sells plenty of trucks that can match or exceed the hauling capacity of the Ford F-150. But the Camry isn’t one of them.
I would say that if someone dumps their M50 and lenses for an R50 and RF-S lenses and then five years down the road decides to upgrade to a full-frame RF body, they won’t be in a much better position to make that migration as far as preserving their investment than they would have been if they had simply kept their M50. (And considering the inevitable losses from making two migrations instead of one, they will almost certainly not be ahead financially when they finally get to full-frame RF.)
Exactly. Just as many learned when they moved from APS-C bodies and only EF-S lenses to FF EF bodies. But they’ll *think* they’re already heavy into the RF system.
My first DSLR was a Rebel XTi because I had a few marginal lenses I’d used with my EOS Rebel SII film body that I thought I’d use with the digital body.
Nope.
Six months after buying the XTi the only one of those lenses I ever used again was the EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
The EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 was too slow and not wide enough on the APS-C body. The Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO bought in the mid-90s locked the XTi up every time it tried to stop down the lens. Even the 18-55 kit lens included with the XTi was horrible (a soft spot to left of center in every photo, even at f/8). So I quickly bought an EF-S 55-250 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 Di II that both did well until I got an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II to use on my 50D a couple of years later. Then the next year a 5D Mark II replace the Rebel + 17-50 as my “wide” body and I had to buy some WA FF lenses …
You’re not necessarily making a “migration” when you go from APS-C EOS R to full-frame EOS R. There’s nothing to stop you buying that EOS R50 with a couple of Canon’s less expensive full-frame RF lenses and using those. The “migration” then is nothing more than buying a new camera.
This is what happened with DSLRs – at least for Nikon shooters. When their whole range was APS-C, people were just using the “full-frame” lenses they’d been using on their 35mm film SLRs for years. They were still the most popular. Making the transition from Nikon’s entire lineup being APS-C to some bodies now becoming full-frame was just a case of getting a new camera and using the lenses you already had. Many people I know who started with Nikon’s APS-C DSLRs back in the day also bought full-frame lenses, expecting to “upgrade” in the future. Most of them didn’t dump their APS-C bodies after going full-frame, either. They just shot both for different purposes.
There’s no reason why that can’t and won’t happen with RF.
But what advice do you give a newbie to the world of ICL photography, which a lot of M50 buyers were (including me less than a year ago)? In posing that question regarding the R50 I’ve gotten two very different responses – ones like yours and others that tout the RF-S lenses that are (supposedly) coming. It’s not very clear right now what to recommend to someone in that position. In fact, if such a person were to come and ask me for advice today, and I was able to determine that having a good selection of relatively compact and inexpensive lenses is important to them, and 4K video is not important to them, I would recommend the M50, because I know that they’ll be able to get the lenses they want, and that even if a few years down the road they want to upgrade to a full frame camera, they won’t really be in a worse position having the M50 than they would be with an R50, with the possible exception of there being less demand for their old gear than there would be for an R50 and RF-S lenses.
How is this any different to Nikon F mount 20 years ago? They were all APS-C DSLRs but most lenses were still full-frame (because we’d just come from several decades of 35mm film). My advice is buy the lenses that give you what you need.
Yes, they’d be in a worse position because they’d be able to use precisely none of their EF-M mounts on an RF body. If they buy an R50 and some full-frame lenses, they have a bunch of lenses that already work with a full-frame body. Even their APS-C RF-C lenses should work, even if you have to go into a crop shooting mode (which, again, is what Nikon did with their full-frame F mount bodies), until you can get full-frame lenses. Yes, they would be in a worse position going with the EOS M50.
“If they buy an R50 and some full-frame lenses…”
Well there’s the rub. I was describing someone who, like myself with EF-M, is going to have most of their lens investment in RF-S lenses, which, unless the full-frame camera they “upgrade” to has a significantly higher pixel count than the R50, are going to perform more poorly (i.e. give them less detail) on their new camera than they did on the R50. (Because of that, I see the ability to use an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera as only half a step above gimmicky.) So they’re going to want to replace most of their lenses along with the body, hence, my assertion that they won’t be much better off than they would have been with an M50.
But investing in RF-S lenses is your choice. You could’ve chosen to go with full-frame lenses instead – something I’ve mentioned in -other comments – as Nikon shooters did 20 years ago before there was a wider (but still not amazing) range of APS-C lenses.
Not everybody buying an EOS R50 is going to want to switch cameras and upgrade. Some are going to be happy to shoot with the EOS R50 or another APS-C body forever.
There’s no rub. I still held onto over a dozen APS-C bodies before I bought my first full-frame and I still use them. My APS-C lenses are still getting used, as are my full-frame lenses and bodies. Not everybody is the same. Not everybody’s needs and future plans are the same. Your bad purchasing decisions due to your own lack of research are your own responsibility and your own problem. :)
Perform poorly? Oh boy. Obviously you think it’s all about resolution, so I’m going to bow out of this discussion here.
But investing in RF-S lenses is your choice. You could’ve chosen to go with full-frame lenses instead – something I’ve mentioned in -other comments – as Nikon shooters did 20 years ago before there was a wider (but still not amazing) range of APS-C lenses.
Not everybody buying an EOS R50 is going to want to switch cameras and upgrade. Some are going to be happy to shoot with the EOS R50 or another APS-C body forever.
There’s no rub. I still held onto over a dozen APS-C bodies before I bought my first full-frame and I still use them. My APS-C lenses are still getting used, as are my full-frame lenses and bodies. Not everybody is the same. Not everybody’s needs and future plans are the same. Your bad purchasing decisions due to your own lack of research are your own responsibility and your own problem. :)
Perform poorly? Oh boy. Obviously you think it’s all about resolution, so I’m going to bow out of this discussion here.
Well Kaouthia, I don’t know why you felt the need to block me so I couldn’t see your reply.
Much better position? What are they going to do in meantime? They’re going to buy these small cameras so they can put huge lenses on them in a couple of years?
In the meantime are they going to use ancient EFS lenses?
In a nutshell, no one should migrate to RFS unless Canon has the goods that you can go and purchase at that time. There is no road map on any RFS lenses. Hell we can’t even get a RF 50 mm 1.4. It’s embarrassing.
The r50 can’t replace the M series even if it wanted to. The lenses are absolute trash. We know Canon is not going to make a complete crop line up and even if they tried that’s going to take years and years. Cannon’s problem is that they think of the whole instead of different parts of the market. They want you to buy full frame stuff …everything else is for Grandma’s, kids and suckers.
I can put sigma primes on my M bodies. RFS can only dream of such a situation.
Feel bad for Canon crop users… unless you’re a bird shooter with the R7. Everything else has severe limitations and it’s not worth purchasing. Go get a R8, at least you’re getting much better image quality and good autofocus with the other huge caveats.
APS-C RF camera owners can use any Sigma prime made in the EF mount.
Yes, those HUGE sigma primes.. and half of them can’t focus properly anyway. That is called fail.
The sigma primes for EFM are not huge DSLR lenses. Big difference.
EF-M system has good wide angle prime/zoom whereas RF-S doesn’t (for the moment).
Future RF-S lenses may just repackage the EF-M lenses eg 22/f2, 11-22mm which would be fine but the thing I can’t understand is that APSC R mount bodies can only do wide angle by adapting the remaining EF-S lenses today. They can be adapted to the M system as well of course.
Canon will continue to sell M systems for as long as there is demand and it is profitable. Definitely in cashcow mode of its product lifecycle with all the sunk costs amortised by now
Trust and security is important. I have invested in a couple of ef-m lenses and two ef-m cameras. Honestly, I‘m quite frustrated not knowing if I will eventually be able to use my ef-m lenses on better cameras. And no, I won‘t do the whole adapter thing. That’s just idiotic and I refuse. Trust is gone. I‘ll switch to Sony. Never buying a Canon product again.
I still see a place for the M line for being smaller. In particular the M200 seems to make for a great street photography camera. But if Canon is going to stop making models- like an M300 with their latest AF, I think the line is heading to death.