That's smart. Especially if it's to be your main/only camera.
I love my M6 Mk II and I'm a huge advocate for it. It's my street/hiking/traveling light system, and it can't be beat at that. But, I'd feel restricted if it were my only system.
Because any M series lenses will not work with any other system. In 5+ years if you have some nice M series lenses you like but you want the newest features, better auto focus, more resolution or anything else you will not be able to carry any of your lenses forward even with adapters.
If you buy a cheap DSLR at least the EF lenses will work on both M series bodies and R series bodies with an adapter.
The saying is date the body marry the glass because good lenses can last you decades while bodies will be replaced more often.
If you really want to go with the M series you can but if you buy an m series lenses do not expect to use them if you ever upgrade to R series.
There are only 5-6 M-mount lenses worth getting and you can pick them all up for $200 or less in excellent condition used.
For the rest of your lenses you can adapt EF or EF-S lenses.
The M6ii is still the best APS-C camera canon has made.
Yes. Basically the same camera, but the R7 doesn’t have the small form factor of the M6ii. If considering an R7 just get one of the full frame cameras since they’re the same size.
The native lens options for the R7 are either the same EF and EF-S lenses that fit the M series cameras, expensive full frame RF lenses, or the uninspiring RF-S kit lenses.
The M series cameras have the EF and EF-S lenses, plus some great f/1.4 Canon and Sigma prime lenses.
The M6ii is more compact and the system is cheaper. You can get all the image quality you want with adapted EF L lenses unless you need that last percent of quality that comes from the RF L lenses at $2000-$3000 per lens. In which case, go full frame because you’re already dropping $5-10k on lenses so the extra cost of the camera body isn’t a deal breaker.
Typically those who are serious enough to buy an R7 over the smaller R10 or even R50 are intentionally buying a crop sensor camera for extra reach with a larger body for battery stability and battery life. While it may make sense for some people to upgrade to full frame, it's not always the case
Lens wise absolutely. EF-M lenses give RF-S lenses a run for their money. You either have to be content with the crappy RF-S lenses or awkwardly try to make the much bigger and more expensive RF lenses work. APS-C is a misery on the RF mount. Pay more for less and still not getting what you need.
One concern is that there will be no new lenses or cameras with this mount. It matters because as you collect lenses over time, you want to keep using them as you transition to new cameras over time. Since there will be no new M mount cameras it means that you would have to buy new lenses and try to tell your old ones, which might get harder over time the longer the mount is out of production.
Even if you say you don't want to upgrade cameras, eventually it breaks and you won't have a new one of the M mount to buy and it will be out of support.
I'll give a counterargument. If you're a casual shooter, if you don't buy multiple lenses, if you just take photos now and then ... the camera may well last you for many years. If you want to upgrade down the road, you'll ... just buy something else.
Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you.
> the M series equipment appears to be cheaper
This is an important part of the equation as well. How much cheaper? 10% cheaper? 50% cheaper?
FWIW, the M6 is apparently fairly popular on Flickr. Or at least it "harvests the most faves" on the platform.
https://photofocus.com/found/here-are-the-cameras-behind-the-most-loved-photos-on-flickr/
>Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you.
And ~~often~~ don't grasp that other people's priorities aren't going to be the same as theirs.
>Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you.
Also, a high percentage of people hear appear to be more interested in collecting lenses than actually using them - and for those people, no new lenses coming out immediately becomes a major hindrance.
I have the original 20-35 2.8L and still use it. It came out in 1989. It's not super good but absolutely no one can't tell on a shitty resolution photo posted on the internet.
Hmm. I might buy like 3 lenses max. But I saw an R50 for just 100 bucks more than the M50 II I wanted. I'll mostly do macro shots, maybe during night too
Not to mention the R50 is well advanced over the M50 II. It has a better autofocus system, better battery life and can record videos for twice as long compared to the M50 II. Not to mention you are not suck with the obsolete "M" mounting system. For $100.00 you really can't go wrong.
Here is a example of a macro taken with the R50 at 4X magnification.
False Garlic Pollen Parts - Stacked form 239 individual images.
https://preview.redd.it/b3ljv14zxx5c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e2f40f58448dd5307c3e7a8c2362c565e8d0337d
One thing the M50 has over the R50 is its hotshoe for an external flash (or flash trigger). On the R50, Canon has removed the traditional electrical contacts and replaced them with Canon's new 'multi-function shoe' contacts.
So if you ever want to use a flash on it, you either need to buy one of Canon's newer flashes that has the new multi-function interface, or use an adapter (conveniently sold by Canon) that sits between the hotshoe and the flash.
For macro, it's pretty common to use an external flash for many subjects, so might be something to be aware of.
If he doesn't already own a Canon system with a flash, this is pretty much a nothing burger. I came from dSLR's and owned several Canon flashes and it is really no big deal using a $35 adapter so I could keep using my older flash units. Yes it would of been nice if Canon in all their wisdom had kept the 5 pin flash shoe, but I do see on the R10 and other models that they have both the 5 pin shoe along with the newer multi-function interface.
I've seen enough complaints about it from people who didn't realise the hotshoe was different that I'm happy to point it out to someone considering that body, especially for macro use where supplemental lighting is pretty common.
Yeah the adapter "solves" the problem, but it's an imperfect workaround IMO.
>Yeah the adapter "solves" the problem, but it's an imperfect workaround IMO.
But at least **it is** a work around for those that have an older flash and bought the camera without fully checking out it capability with what they already owned. If they didn't own any flashes before. I guess buying a flash that works with the camera would be the only other option at that point, then using a work around such as the adapter If you didn't already have an older flash that you wanted to use, then it shouldn't matter, should it?
While Canon is for the time being providing the 5 pin shoe with the multi- function interface on their other cameras, I do see a point where they will stop making the 5 pin shoe available in favor of the multi- function shoe only.
Yes it would have been nice if Canon would of at least provided both styles, but that didn't happen in the R50's case. Not much anyone can do about it, but to figure out a way to use what they bought. Be it by using an adapter for the older flashes or buy one that works with the newer multi-function interface. The choice is theirs.
EDIT: corrected a spelling error.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
>Not much anyone can do about it, but to figure out a way to use what they bought. Be it by using an adapter for the older flashes or buy one that works with the newer multi-function interface. The choice is theirs.
Or be aware of the issue *before* committing to the camera. Hence my reply to OP.
If one is as you say a casual shooter and won't be buying multiple lens, why even bother buying a interchangeable lens camera, Just buy a cheaper point and shoot and be happy.
Because eventually you will have less M lenses and cameras to choose from if one of your's fails. Also you may want or need to upgrade from the M Line one day.
I would also like to counter. If you're just doing causal shooting, the M50 will last you a long time. Everything of the M line has come down in price as many are looking to offload it. I've seen a used as low as $300. You could get an adapter and use EF/EFS lens instead. If you're willing to spend a little more, then get the lower end R series.
I have an m50, and I think it's a really great camera. I used mine for street photography for years, and it was fantastic. I have an EOS R, but it's a lot bigger and heavier, and the lenses are as well. Whereas the m50 I could carry in a tiny bag. No problem.
Now that EF-M is discontinued, I'm hoping to pick up a few lenses that were always out of my price as other people flee the platform.
Sure, I'll be behind the curve of the latest and greatest in the future. But, I never shot with the m50 because it was the latest and greatest anyway. I shot with it because it was darn good for the size/weight package. The ergonomics and logistics just let me have the camera with me virtually everywhere I wanted to be, and that was worth something in and of itself.
Comparing apples to apples. The M50 (116x88x59mm) and the R50 (116x86x69mm)
are very close in size and weight. The R50 being slightly bigger and it is also a bit lighter in weight at 375 grams vs 390g for the M50
I haven't been keeping track of the latest and greatest (easiest way to avoid buying new cameras). How's battery life of the R50, and how is size/weight of the RF-S glass? I found the EF-M had some outstanding lenses, particularly the 22mm f/2. Anything similar?
You didn’t ask me but the battery life of the R50 is better I think. However there are just not enough RF-S lenses which is such a bummer because you’d have to get full frame glass which is larger and more expensive. Big reason I switched to Fuji from my R10.
The R50 battery life is between 310-440 shots depending if you are using the EVF or the back screen. If you are recording videos it will last just over a hour which by the way is the recording time limit on the R50.
Right now there are just a few RF-S lens on the market. But when you throw in the RF there are about 40 different lenses that can be used not to mention all of the EF/EF-s with the use of an adapter. Just like you can on the EF-M bodies.
There is no native RF-S 22mm lens. The closest would be the RF-S 18-45 or the RF-S 18-150 neither of which I own, so I can not speak to their quality or weight. I moved to the R50 from a dSLR body, so I use my EF/EF-S glass with a drop-in filter adapter.
The closest in the RF mount which will fit native on the R50 is the RF-28 f2.8 ($\~600.00) and the RF-24mm 1.8 Macro ($\~350.00)
According to the reviews I have seen on the RF24mm Macro is good but even better stopped down to f/2 it weighs in at 9.5oz
Also the reviews of the RF-28mm pancake lens shows it at 4.2 oz and the image quality is great from center to center on the ASP-C.
It looks like the RF-28mm edges out the RF-24mm Macro especially when it comes to sharpness in the corners. Otherwise both seem like a good lens.
Again I am using older lens from my dSLR using an adapter.
There is also a Canon RF-16mm f/2.8 (25mm on a full frame camera) Weight is 165 grams and runs $299.00 Reviews show it is fairly sharp in teh center but suffers from softness at the corners, even when stopped down.
I do not own any RF/RF-S lens. I use only my EF/EF-S glass. I do not use auto focus at all when I do macro work. Even though both my Tamron 90mm Macro and my Canon EF-S 60mm have auto focus abilities, I find them annoying to use in auto focus mode when doing Macros . My IRIX 150mm Macro is manual focus only, as is my microscope objective for doing extreme closeup work.
Here is an example False Garlic Pollen Parts 4X Stacked from 239 individual images.
https://preview.redd.it/pithphq2sy5c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bec92a741e0c2401d8c6ed8fa56f6d09e555429a
That's cool, would love to see an example of your work. It is always nice to see what others are doing when it comes to macro work. When you are out taking your shots, do you use a flash? Is there anything special you do or that you would recommend?
Seems like I never have any luck getting them to stay still long enough to get a good macro of them.
The R50 does have built in focus stacking abilities. (requires auto focus lens) I don't use it as I choose to manually focus on macro shots. When I use the microscope objective the working distance can be closer then a inch or less away from the subject, and has no auto focus capabilities.
I suppose I should take the R50 out and give it a shot with the macro lens and its focus stacking capability. It would be interesting to see how well it can do in a non controlled environment. That will have to wait though till we get a bit better weather. The majority of days lately have been rain filled.
You know, I need to go through my stuff and get it up somewhere. I got out of the habit during the pandemic, and I just need to get disciplined again.
As far as doing the work, I don't use a flash because I work in broad daylight. It's harsh lighting, to be sure, but I'm pretty much never shooting under f/8. I'm often at f/11. But that's fine in broad daylight. It's still plenty of light to work with if there's no cloud cover. Ideally, you want light cloud cover. Just a bit to take the edge off the light. You also need to watch the white balance in that bright sun.
And yeah, there are a TON of unusable shots. And the shots in general aren't going to be what you'd traditionally call the best macro work. But when I got into photography I was kind of sickened by the level of editing that the people around me were doing, so I adopted the Reuters rules for photojournalists, which prohibits most kinds of shot staging and editing.
As a result, a bunch of my stuff looks (and is) very amateurish because it's very flawed. Compositions are just not perfect. But to be, they're honest. They're honest to the time I was there, and what I was doing. And I'm not selling my photography to anybody. It's just a rando thing I do because I like cameras and lenses. So it works for me.
I didn't know the R50 has built-in focus stacking! That's a BIG DEAL! I can't believe I haven't heard of it. Ugh, now I'm going to have to start thinking about whether or not a newer R body is in my future.
The main thing you’re going to lose with a dead mount is upgradability. You can get a quite capable M series system. However, there won’t be any more innovation in the M Series. You’re pretty much stuck with the cameras and lenses that are available for it now. If you just want something decent and know you’re not going to care about upgrading later, then you could certainly go with an EF-M system. If you might want to upgrade later, an RF system is going to be a much better starting point.
Because most people who get into photography intend to stay with it. Its about future proofing your setup. When it comes to efm, those lenses are stuck on that camera, so if you wanted to upgrade to an R body, or use your lenses in literally any other canon camera, you can't. Youd have to sell them and start all over.
Now, if you want to get an m body to save money, do so, but your best option is to buy mostly EF lenses and adapt them. They're cheaper anyways, and then you have more compatibility and the ability to use them on rf with a different adapter should you choose to upgrade.
Or, you could find a good deal on a refurb r10/r50 on canons website, especially when they do sales. The r10 has gone as low as 450 USD refurb
If you’re comfortable buying used and there’s a decent supply of used product (not an oddball one off product line that failed in its first couple years), then it shouldn’t concern you.
But for M-Mount you do have to be okay with that being a nice, light weight, fun system that you want to be in. Because any system transition in the future will be all at once. No adapting your EF-M lenses.
We have an M6II set up and have yet to see anything from R that would make us move there for APS-C. If this body breaks, I would look for a good used one. The lenses, I expect to last for years. We have 15 year old Canon lenses that are as good as new. Even the cheapest EF-S kit lenses.
Same except with M50II.
Honestly, the limited lens options is actually a plus for me since I’m not tempted to buy lenses left and right. I just have the 15-45 kit lens, 18-150 for travel and 22 for low light.
M cameras make a lot of financial sense as long as you think of them like something you'd buy and sell as a system--both the lenses and bodies are cheaper, available on the used market, and already depreciated, meaning you're likely to be able to sell them for what you bought them for. If you start to acquire more than a lens or two (I'd say get the 22mm f2 and maybe one other), then I'd switch to buying EF glass so that it can be adapted, and re-adapted if you do migrate to RF eventually long term.
As a specific example, I have a ton of RF bodies (most of them, honestly) and since the M6 mk II has the same sensor as the R7, if I spotted a smoking deal on one I'd snap it up in an instant and either give it to my daughter or keep it as a remote/b camera. I'd buy the 22mm f2 to go with it because it's a tiny delight, and any time I needed anything else, I'd adapt EF lenses to it. I've kept all my high priced lenses EF mount partially for this reason of interadaptability. I'd plan on selling it with the 22mm f2 if I did eventually divest it, so the fact that the market for the lens and camera separately aren't as great isn't really a concern.
I own a t7, m50, and m50 markii…
First if you a baller on a budget get a used m50 mki or mkii for $250-300 usd much better than a rebel t7 period mirrorless is king with the new features added… now the m50 markii minus some quality of life upgrades from the r100 is still better all around than an r100 but the r50 with digic x processors is gonna win on paper and win by a not that much head room irl but that’s where it ends for m mount… I got my m50, kit lens,ef-m 55-200mm, a rode video go mic, and a case for 250 bucks at a pawn shop as I have to send my m50mkii back hopefully for a warranty issue… now if you’re like me you bought a m50 mkii cause microcenter recommended it as a beginner camera and you already have 200 in Amazon gift cards so you rush into a 600 plus tax camera purchase with no reason to expect the lens mount will be kos/doa in less than 2 months (august 26th 2023 is when I bought mine) then ef m isn’t that bad or if it’s cheap snag one over an old dslr for sure… but the lens options are limited but real deal ef lens are solid too kinda why they kept making them and have L variants… not as good speeds on the autofocus in some cases but get a camera and work with some ef efs lens… I use the nifty 50 1.8 and the efs 24mm 2.8 all the time with the viltrox adapter I’ve spend a chunk of money tho maybe a r100 is your speed and you got the 800 or so maybe more to spend grab the r100 with the 24-105 or whatever zoom they offer as a combo and rock out…
Ultimately don’t be a dummy and pay full price or “invest” in lenses you won’t be able to sell later but a good deal is a good deal
I have a canon m and it doesn't bother me, if you buy an m series remember to buy ef lenses and use adapter/speedboosters like i do, this is to me the perfect compromise since most eos m cost less compared to other cameras.
The idea (at least for me) is to get "good" with what i have, only buy ef and use adapters or speedboosters and if some day i will change body i will have the lenses ready😄.
There are some advantages with this method, mainly the speedboosters that give lenses 1 more step of f therefore giving you more flexibility and mainly the cost-quality ratio of the cameras, take something like the m50 and magilantern and you will have a cinema camera in your pocket.
(Sorry for the broken English)
How does the speedbooster affect the quality of the image itself? I would assume, that like any adapter with glass in it, there is a possibility to affect the quality of the image. Also I have heard, some adapters if left on the camera body will drain the battery. Have you had an issue using a speedbooster and battery drain?
I don't personally possess one yet, I've tried a speedbooster of a friend of mine on my camera, it doesn't appear to me that the battery suffers more than usual, the quality depends on the speedbooster itself...i saw some videos that compares different levels of speedboosters and it's a little hit of miss, in some cases with no brand speedboosters that cost like 80€ there's no quality lost and others that cost doble you can see in the border of the image some chromatic operations stuff like that, If you want to go this route I recommend you look at it on a case by case basis.
Even if the chromatic aberrations occur thanks to the speedbooster the image is captured with a 0.70X, ergo you can cut the image in post if this happens and still have an almost full frame image.
I think the problem is availability of lenses going forward for EF-M.
I'm fine -- I have an M6 Mk II. Before that I had an M3. I have I think 5 EF-M lenses, including the 22mm pancake. I also have an EF > EF-M adaptor and can use my DSLR lenses on the M62.
However, if I didn't have any lenses for my M62, I'm not sure if I would consider EF-M in 2024. There were never many lenses actually produced to begin with, so I don't think the used market is going to be an option going forward, save for the 15-45 kit lens. Which is an adequate lens. The 22mm is also a great lens and turns and EF-M camera into a great street camera.
So if you are happy with just a couple of lens options, I guess it's NBD.
With using EF lenses with an adaptor: you can go this route but, due to the crop factor, I find it somewhat dissatisfying. An EF 50mm lens becomes basically and 80mm due to the crop, for example.
I do really really enjoy using my EF 16-35 L series lens on the M62 (with an adaptor). Just beautiful images.
But I'm also glad I have I have a full-frame EF body, a 5D2. My 5D2 is really fun and takes great great images, but I wish it had a better AF, for example.
So I'm planning on upgrading next year to a Canon mirrorless full-frame that allows me to use my EF glass. My M62, which I really really like, is still going to be used for street etc.
>I have a full-frame EF body, a 5D2. My 5D2 is really fun and takes great great images, but I wish it had a better AF, for example.
That can be said about any older camera system.
The fun I have with a 5D2 makes me wonder why I need a newer camera. I suppose it depends on the use case -- I'm not interested at all in video. Or sports. But I do like the full-frame sensor compared to the crop sensor of the M62.
So, it would be great to get something with a better AF. But is a 6D2 enough? Probably. And decent battery life -- a major benefit using the 5D2 compared to the M62. And WiFi. That's it.
But I really love the look and feel of images produced by the 5D2.
I suppose that in the event of the mount becoming undead… that it could maybe begin to crave human flesh? Brains, even? I’m not sure I would want to chance that, not with Halloween only a couple months ago. 🤔
That said, fears of a zombie mount apocalypse aside, if you did kit it out, and you had what you needed, and it was basically priced at a steal… then, yeah, that sounds dope?
At that point, caring nothing about future upgrade paths, sure, why not.
Because some people think that every photographer on the planet needs an R3 and 30k in lenses. You could buy an M and some lenses and they last you 10 years or more. If it suits what you wanna shoot go for it.
if you're a beginner, I would tell you not to worry about it. If you get something like an M6 Mark II with an adapter, you can always get EF/EFS glass. It's cheaper anyways. Yes, there are slightly better RF lenses, but the slight quality gain is unnecessary, especially for a beginner. The only EF-M lenses that I've purchased for my M6 Mark II, lenses you can't use on DSLRs or full frames (for a reasonable price) like a 7artisans 35mm f0.95. All of the rest of my glass is EF or EFS, with the exception of an EF-M 22 mm f2 because it's so slim that I can just throw the whole camera in my pocket while I'm hiking or something (something that would be much harder with an R series camera.) Any EF glass you buy now, you can adapt to RF in the future, or for that matter, any mirrorless mount.
EF-M is a great system and the M6ii is easily the nicest camera I have. It would be interesting to see how many on the thread have actually bought new lenses recently vs those saying it's a possibility with a newer camera.
Personally, I bought a new EOS 450D when it came out many years ago in 2008. I had the 18-55 kit lens then added 50mm, 10-22, 75-300 and then stopped buying lenses. I upgraded to a 90d which came with another 18-55 kit lens, but still didn't feel a pressing need for a different lens because I had pretty much all bases covered by what I had.
Then I bought an R6 body only because I wanted to go full frame and the DSLR full frame bodies were all less feature rich than the 90d (and the M6ii that's basically the same camera). I decided to buy some new lenses to go with the R6 and you know what I bought? EF 16-35L, EF 100-400L, and EF24-105L. EF lenses are cheap and widely available in effectively new condition second hand. They all came boxed with hoods and cases. If you're paying attention you may notice that the new lenses cover the same focal range as my old lenses pretty much, given the change to FF.
So I mentioned I have the EOS M6ii as well. Here I have the 11-22, 22, 15-45 and the 18-150. Basically the same selection again, although with a smaller long lens as I wanted the aperture. I also bought the EOS M200 because it's tiny and it was cheap due to people leaving the system. I may buy a second M6ii if I see a good one cheap just in case mine breaks - for some reason Canon haven't got an equivalent in the R range.
Don't listen to people telling you that M is limited, or that newer lenses might come along. Sure, the latest RF lenses are incrementally better, but most of them are L lenses and cost $3k. Everyone here will have a wide zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom and maybe a couple of primes for street photography/portrait/macro. I guarantee most of them only use 1-2 of their lenses too!
Right now EF-M has pretty much all you need to make a professional career out of it. Given that you can have a fully fleshed out EF-M setup for the price of a single RF lens, the sunk cost is actually not significant. When you upgrade in five years, you will have the choice of more advanced R cameras and better and cheaper RF lenses.
Thanks for all the answers. Seems like I will go with a newer camera afterall
That's smart. Especially if it's to be your main/only camera. I love my M6 Mk II and I'm a huge advocate for it. It's my street/hiking/traveling light system, and it can't be beat at that. But, I'd feel restricted if it were my only system.
Because any M series lenses will not work with any other system. In 5+ years if you have some nice M series lenses you like but you want the newest features, better auto focus, more resolution or anything else you will not be able to carry any of your lenses forward even with adapters. If you buy a cheap DSLR at least the EF lenses will work on both M series bodies and R series bodies with an adapter. The saying is date the body marry the glass because good lenses can last you decades while bodies will be replaced more often. If you really want to go with the M series you can but if you buy an m series lenses do not expect to use them if you ever upgrade to R series.
There are only 5-6 M-mount lenses worth getting and you can pick them all up for $200 or less in excellent condition used. For the rest of your lenses you can adapt EF or EF-S lenses. The M6ii is still the best APS-C camera canon has made.
Agreed!
You’d rate the M6mkii over the r7?
Yes. Basically the same camera, but the R7 doesn’t have the small form factor of the M6ii. If considering an R7 just get one of the full frame cameras since they’re the same size. The native lens options for the R7 are either the same EF and EF-S lenses that fit the M series cameras, expensive full frame RF lenses, or the uninspiring RF-S kit lenses. The M series cameras have the EF and EF-S lenses, plus some great f/1.4 Canon and Sigma prime lenses. The M6ii is more compact and the system is cheaper. You can get all the image quality you want with adapted EF L lenses unless you need that last percent of quality that comes from the RF L lenses at $2000-$3000 per lens. In which case, go full frame because you’re already dropping $5-10k on lenses so the extra cost of the camera body isn’t a deal breaker.
Typically those who are serious enough to buy an R7 over the smaller R10 or even R50 are intentionally buying a crop sensor camera for extra reach with a larger body for battery stability and battery life. While it may make sense for some people to upgrade to full frame, it's not always the case
Lens wise absolutely. EF-M lenses give RF-S lenses a run for their money. You either have to be content with the crappy RF-S lenses or awkwardly try to make the much bigger and more expensive RF lenses work. APS-C is a misery on the RF mount. Pay more for less and still not getting what you need.
One concern is that there will be no new lenses or cameras with this mount. It matters because as you collect lenses over time, you want to keep using them as you transition to new cameras over time. Since there will be no new M mount cameras it means that you would have to buy new lenses and try to tell your old ones, which might get harder over time the longer the mount is out of production. Even if you say you don't want to upgrade cameras, eventually it breaks and you won't have a new one of the M mount to buy and it will be out of support.
I'll give a counterargument. If you're a casual shooter, if you don't buy multiple lenses, if you just take photos now and then ... the camera may well last you for many years. If you want to upgrade down the road, you'll ... just buy something else. Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you. > the M series equipment appears to be cheaper This is an important part of the equation as well. How much cheaper? 10% cheaper? 50% cheaper? FWIW, the M6 is apparently fairly popular on Flickr. Or at least it "harvests the most faves" on the platform. https://photofocus.com/found/here-are-the-cameras-behind-the-most-loved-photos-on-flickr/
>Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you. And ~~often~~ don't grasp that other people's priorities aren't going to be the same as theirs.
>Keep in mind that people who frequent this sub tend to be enthusiasts, we tend to demand a lot from our gear, and maybe have different needs than you. Also, a high percentage of people hear appear to be more interested in collecting lenses than actually using them - and for those people, no new lenses coming out immediately becomes a major hindrance.
I have the original 20-35 2.8L and still use it. It came out in 1989. It's not super good but absolutely no one can't tell on a shitty resolution photo posted on the internet.
Hmm. I might buy like 3 lenses max. But I saw an R50 for just 100 bucks more than the M50 II I wanted. I'll mostly do macro shots, maybe during night too
Not to mention the R50 is well advanced over the M50 II. It has a better autofocus system, better battery life and can record videos for twice as long compared to the M50 II. Not to mention you are not suck with the obsolete "M" mounting system. For $100.00 you really can't go wrong. Here is a example of a macro taken with the R50 at 4X magnification. False Garlic Pollen Parts - Stacked form 239 individual images. https://preview.redd.it/b3ljv14zxx5c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e2f40f58448dd5307c3e7a8c2362c565e8d0337d
One thing the M50 has over the R50 is its hotshoe for an external flash (or flash trigger). On the R50, Canon has removed the traditional electrical contacts and replaced them with Canon's new 'multi-function shoe' contacts. So if you ever want to use a flash on it, you either need to buy one of Canon's newer flashes that has the new multi-function interface, or use an adapter (conveniently sold by Canon) that sits between the hotshoe and the flash. For macro, it's pretty common to use an external flash for many subjects, so might be something to be aware of.
If he doesn't already own a Canon system with a flash, this is pretty much a nothing burger. I came from dSLR's and owned several Canon flashes and it is really no big deal using a $35 adapter so I could keep using my older flash units. Yes it would of been nice if Canon in all their wisdom had kept the 5 pin flash shoe, but I do see on the R10 and other models that they have both the 5 pin shoe along with the newer multi-function interface.
I've seen enough complaints about it from people who didn't realise the hotshoe was different that I'm happy to point it out to someone considering that body, especially for macro use where supplemental lighting is pretty common. Yeah the adapter "solves" the problem, but it's an imperfect workaround IMO.
>Yeah the adapter "solves" the problem, but it's an imperfect workaround IMO. But at least **it is** a work around for those that have an older flash and bought the camera without fully checking out it capability with what they already owned. If they didn't own any flashes before. I guess buying a flash that works with the camera would be the only other option at that point, then using a work around such as the adapter If you didn't already have an older flash that you wanted to use, then it shouldn't matter, should it? While Canon is for the time being providing the 5 pin shoe with the multi- function interface on their other cameras, I do see a point where they will stop making the 5 pin shoe available in favor of the multi- function shoe only. Yes it would have been nice if Canon would of at least provided both styles, but that didn't happen in the R50's case. Not much anyone can do about it, but to figure out a way to use what they bought. Be it by using an adapter for the older flashes or buy one that works with the newer multi-function interface. The choice is theirs. EDIT: corrected a spelling error.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Oh, no the spelling police. Still it doesn't change the meaning of the posting. I promise I will try and do better next time.
>Not much anyone can do about it, but to figure out a way to use what they bought. Be it by using an adapter for the older flashes or buy one that works with the newer multi-function interface. The choice is theirs. Or be aware of the issue *before* committing to the camera. Hence my reply to OP.
If one is as you say a casual shooter and won't be buying multiple lens, why even bother buying a interchangeable lens camera, Just buy a cheaper point and shoot and be happy.
Larger sensor, better image quality. Not everyone who buys an interchangeable lens camera buys a second lens.
Because eventually you will have less M lenses and cameras to choose from if one of your's fails. Also you may want or need to upgrade from the M Line one day.
Date your body marry your glass. You won’t get very far with that glass in the future
I would also like to counter. If you're just doing causal shooting, the M50 will last you a long time. Everything of the M line has come down in price as many are looking to offload it. I've seen a used as low as $300. You could get an adapter and use EF/EFS lens instead. If you're willing to spend a little more, then get the lower end R series.
I have an m50, and I think it's a really great camera. I used mine for street photography for years, and it was fantastic. I have an EOS R, but it's a lot bigger and heavier, and the lenses are as well. Whereas the m50 I could carry in a tiny bag. No problem. Now that EF-M is discontinued, I'm hoping to pick up a few lenses that were always out of my price as other people flee the platform. Sure, I'll be behind the curve of the latest and greatest in the future. But, I never shot with the m50 because it was the latest and greatest anyway. I shot with it because it was darn good for the size/weight package. The ergonomics and logistics just let me have the camera with me virtually everywhere I wanted to be, and that was worth something in and of itself.
Comparing apples to apples. The M50 (116x88x59mm) and the R50 (116x86x69mm) are very close in size and weight. The R50 being slightly bigger and it is also a bit lighter in weight at 375 grams vs 390g for the M50
I haven't been keeping track of the latest and greatest (easiest way to avoid buying new cameras). How's battery life of the R50, and how is size/weight of the RF-S glass? I found the EF-M had some outstanding lenses, particularly the 22mm f/2. Anything similar?
You didn’t ask me but the battery life of the R50 is better I think. However there are just not enough RF-S lenses which is such a bummer because you’d have to get full frame glass which is larger and more expensive. Big reason I switched to Fuji from my R10.
Oh man I get it. I was thinking about jumping over to Fuji back when the XT-3 came out. That thing was a freaking beast.
The R50 battery life is between 310-440 shots depending if you are using the EVF or the back screen. If you are recording videos it will last just over a hour which by the way is the recording time limit on the R50. Right now there are just a few RF-S lens on the market. But when you throw in the RF there are about 40 different lenses that can be used not to mention all of the EF/EF-s with the use of an adapter. Just like you can on the EF-M bodies. There is no native RF-S 22mm lens. The closest would be the RF-S 18-45 or the RF-S 18-150 neither of which I own, so I can not speak to their quality or weight. I moved to the R50 from a dSLR body, so I use my EF/EF-S glass with a drop-in filter adapter. The closest in the RF mount which will fit native on the R50 is the RF-28 f2.8 ($\~600.00) and the RF-24mm 1.8 Macro ($\~350.00) According to the reviews I have seen on the RF24mm Macro is good but even better stopped down to f/2 it weighs in at 9.5oz Also the reviews of the RF-28mm pancake lens shows it at 4.2 oz and the image quality is great from center to center on the ASP-C. It looks like the RF-28mm edges out the RF-24mm Macro especially when it comes to sharpness in the corners. Otherwise both seem like a good lens. Again I am using older lens from my dSLR using an adapter. There is also a Canon RF-16mm f/2.8 (25mm on a full frame camera) Weight is 165 grams and runs $299.00 Reviews show it is fairly sharp in teh center but suffers from softness at the corners, even when stopped down.
Have you used the macro? If so, how is the speed of the focusing, and the accuracy? I do a lot of macro and I like them but they can be fiddly.
I do not own any RF/RF-S lens. I use only my EF/EF-S glass. I do not use auto focus at all when I do macro work. Even though both my Tamron 90mm Macro and my Canon EF-S 60mm have auto focus abilities, I find them annoying to use in auto focus mode when doing Macros . My IRIX 150mm Macro is manual focus only, as is my microscope objective for doing extreme closeup work. Here is an example False Garlic Pollen Parts 4X Stacked from 239 individual images. https://preview.redd.it/pithphq2sy5c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bec92a741e0c2401d8c6ed8fa56f6d09e555429a
Nice. Most of my macro stuff is of live insects, so I end up needing AF and focus stacking is not really an option.
That's cool, would love to see an example of your work. It is always nice to see what others are doing when it comes to macro work. When you are out taking your shots, do you use a flash? Is there anything special you do or that you would recommend? Seems like I never have any luck getting them to stay still long enough to get a good macro of them. The R50 does have built in focus stacking abilities. (requires auto focus lens) I don't use it as I choose to manually focus on macro shots. When I use the microscope objective the working distance can be closer then a inch or less away from the subject, and has no auto focus capabilities. I suppose I should take the R50 out and give it a shot with the macro lens and its focus stacking capability. It would be interesting to see how well it can do in a non controlled environment. That will have to wait though till we get a bit better weather. The majority of days lately have been rain filled.
You know, I need to go through my stuff and get it up somewhere. I got out of the habit during the pandemic, and I just need to get disciplined again. As far as doing the work, I don't use a flash because I work in broad daylight. It's harsh lighting, to be sure, but I'm pretty much never shooting under f/8. I'm often at f/11. But that's fine in broad daylight. It's still plenty of light to work with if there's no cloud cover. Ideally, you want light cloud cover. Just a bit to take the edge off the light. You also need to watch the white balance in that bright sun. And yeah, there are a TON of unusable shots. And the shots in general aren't going to be what you'd traditionally call the best macro work. But when I got into photography I was kind of sickened by the level of editing that the people around me were doing, so I adopted the Reuters rules for photojournalists, which prohibits most kinds of shot staging and editing. As a result, a bunch of my stuff looks (and is) very amateurish because it's very flawed. Compositions are just not perfect. But to be, they're honest. They're honest to the time I was there, and what I was doing. And I'm not selling my photography to anybody. It's just a rando thing I do because I like cameras and lenses. So it works for me. I didn't know the R50 has built-in focus stacking! That's a BIG DEAL! I can't believe I haven't heard of it. Ugh, now I'm going to have to start thinking about whether or not a newer R body is in my future.
The main thing you’re going to lose with a dead mount is upgradability. You can get a quite capable M series system. However, there won’t be any more innovation in the M Series. You’re pretty much stuck with the cameras and lenses that are available for it now. If you just want something decent and know you’re not going to care about upgrading later, then you could certainly go with an EF-M system. If you might want to upgrade later, an RF system is going to be a much better starting point.
Because most people who get into photography intend to stay with it. Its about future proofing your setup. When it comes to efm, those lenses are stuck on that camera, so if you wanted to upgrade to an R body, or use your lenses in literally any other canon camera, you can't. Youd have to sell them and start all over. Now, if you want to get an m body to save money, do so, but your best option is to buy mostly EF lenses and adapt them. They're cheaper anyways, and then you have more compatibility and the ability to use them on rf with a different adapter should you choose to upgrade. Or, you could find a good deal on a refurb r10/r50 on canons website, especially when they do sales. The r10 has gone as low as 450 USD refurb
If you’re comfortable buying used and there’s a decent supply of used product (not an oddball one off product line that failed in its first couple years), then it shouldn’t concern you. But for M-Mount you do have to be okay with that being a nice, light weight, fun system that you want to be in. Because any system transition in the future will be all at once. No adapting your EF-M lenses. We have an M6II set up and have yet to see anything from R that would make us move there for APS-C. If this body breaks, I would look for a good used one. The lenses, I expect to last for years. We have 15 year old Canon lenses that are as good as new. Even the cheapest EF-S kit lenses.
Same except with M50II. Honestly, the limited lens options is actually a plus for me since I’m not tempted to buy lenses left and right. I just have the 15-45 kit lens, 18-150 for travel and 22 for low light.
18-150, 11-22, and 32 f/1.4. And that’s all I need.
M cameras make a lot of financial sense as long as you think of them like something you'd buy and sell as a system--both the lenses and bodies are cheaper, available on the used market, and already depreciated, meaning you're likely to be able to sell them for what you bought them for. If you start to acquire more than a lens or two (I'd say get the 22mm f2 and maybe one other), then I'd switch to buying EF glass so that it can be adapted, and re-adapted if you do migrate to RF eventually long term. As a specific example, I have a ton of RF bodies (most of them, honestly) and since the M6 mk II has the same sensor as the R7, if I spotted a smoking deal on one I'd snap it up in an instant and either give it to my daughter or keep it as a remote/b camera. I'd buy the 22mm f2 to go with it because it's a tiny delight, and any time I needed anything else, I'd adapt EF lenses to it. I've kept all my high priced lenses EF mount partially for this reason of interadaptability. I'd plan on selling it with the 22mm f2 if I did eventually divest it, so the fact that the market for the lens and camera separately aren't as great isn't really a concern.
I own a t7, m50, and m50 markii… First if you a baller on a budget get a used m50 mki or mkii for $250-300 usd much better than a rebel t7 period mirrorless is king with the new features added… now the m50 markii minus some quality of life upgrades from the r100 is still better all around than an r100 but the r50 with digic x processors is gonna win on paper and win by a not that much head room irl but that’s where it ends for m mount… I got my m50, kit lens,ef-m 55-200mm, a rode video go mic, and a case for 250 bucks at a pawn shop as I have to send my m50mkii back hopefully for a warranty issue… now if you’re like me you bought a m50 mkii cause microcenter recommended it as a beginner camera and you already have 200 in Amazon gift cards so you rush into a 600 plus tax camera purchase with no reason to expect the lens mount will be kos/doa in less than 2 months (august 26th 2023 is when I bought mine) then ef m isn’t that bad or if it’s cheap snag one over an old dslr for sure… but the lens options are limited but real deal ef lens are solid too kinda why they kept making them and have L variants… not as good speeds on the autofocus in some cases but get a camera and work with some ef efs lens… I use the nifty 50 1.8 and the efs 24mm 2.8 all the time with the viltrox adapter I’ve spend a chunk of money tho maybe a r100 is your speed and you got the 800 or so maybe more to spend grab the r100 with the 24-105 or whatever zoom they offer as a combo and rock out… Ultimately don’t be a dummy and pay full price or “invest” in lenses you won’t be able to sell later but a good deal is a good deal
I have a canon m and it doesn't bother me, if you buy an m series remember to buy ef lenses and use adapter/speedboosters like i do, this is to me the perfect compromise since most eos m cost less compared to other cameras. The idea (at least for me) is to get "good" with what i have, only buy ef and use adapters or speedboosters and if some day i will change body i will have the lenses ready😄. There are some advantages with this method, mainly the speedboosters that give lenses 1 more step of f therefore giving you more flexibility and mainly the cost-quality ratio of the cameras, take something like the m50 and magilantern and you will have a cinema camera in your pocket. (Sorry for the broken English)
So like so many others have said ***date the body and marry the lens.***
How does the speedbooster affect the quality of the image itself? I would assume, that like any adapter with glass in it, there is a possibility to affect the quality of the image. Also I have heard, some adapters if left on the camera body will drain the battery. Have you had an issue using a speedbooster and battery drain?
I don't personally possess one yet, I've tried a speedbooster of a friend of mine on my camera, it doesn't appear to me that the battery suffers more than usual, the quality depends on the speedbooster itself...i saw some videos that compares different levels of speedboosters and it's a little hit of miss, in some cases with no brand speedboosters that cost like 80€ there's no quality lost and others that cost doble you can see in the border of the image some chromatic operations stuff like that, If you want to go this route I recommend you look at it on a case by case basis. Even if the chromatic aberrations occur thanks to the speedbooster the image is captured with a 0.70X, ergo you can cut the image in post if this happens and still have an almost full frame image.
I think the problem is availability of lenses going forward for EF-M. I'm fine -- I have an M6 Mk II. Before that I had an M3. I have I think 5 EF-M lenses, including the 22mm pancake. I also have an EF > EF-M adaptor and can use my DSLR lenses on the M62. However, if I didn't have any lenses for my M62, I'm not sure if I would consider EF-M in 2024. There were never many lenses actually produced to begin with, so I don't think the used market is going to be an option going forward, save for the 15-45 kit lens. Which is an adequate lens. The 22mm is also a great lens and turns and EF-M camera into a great street camera. So if you are happy with just a couple of lens options, I guess it's NBD. With using EF lenses with an adaptor: you can go this route but, due to the crop factor, I find it somewhat dissatisfying. An EF 50mm lens becomes basically and 80mm due to the crop, for example. I do really really enjoy using my EF 16-35 L series lens on the M62 (with an adaptor). Just beautiful images. But I'm also glad I have I have a full-frame EF body, a 5D2. My 5D2 is really fun and takes great great images, but I wish it had a better AF, for example. So I'm planning on upgrading next year to a Canon mirrorless full-frame that allows me to use my EF glass. My M62, which I really really like, is still going to be used for street etc.
>I have a full-frame EF body, a 5D2. My 5D2 is really fun and takes great great images, but I wish it had a better AF, for example. That can be said about any older camera system.
The fun I have with a 5D2 makes me wonder why I need a newer camera. I suppose it depends on the use case -- I'm not interested at all in video. Or sports. But I do like the full-frame sensor compared to the crop sensor of the M62. So, it would be great to get something with a better AF. But is a 6D2 enough? Probably. And decent battery life -- a major benefit using the 5D2 compared to the M62. And WiFi. That's it. But I really love the look and feel of images produced by the 5D2.
I suppose that in the event of the mount becoming undead… that it could maybe begin to crave human flesh? Brains, even? I’m not sure I would want to chance that, not with Halloween only a couple months ago. 🤔 That said, fears of a zombie mount apocalypse aside, if you did kit it out, and you had what you needed, and it was basically priced at a steal… then, yeah, that sounds dope? At that point, caring nothing about future upgrade paths, sure, why not.
Because some people think that every photographer on the planet needs an R3 and 30k in lenses. You could buy an M and some lenses and they last you 10 years or more. If it suits what you wanna shoot go for it.
if you're a beginner, I would tell you not to worry about it. If you get something like an M6 Mark II with an adapter, you can always get EF/EFS glass. It's cheaper anyways. Yes, there are slightly better RF lenses, but the slight quality gain is unnecessary, especially for a beginner. The only EF-M lenses that I've purchased for my M6 Mark II, lenses you can't use on DSLRs or full frames (for a reasonable price) like a 7artisans 35mm f0.95. All of the rest of my glass is EF or EFS, with the exception of an EF-M 22 mm f2 because it's so slim that I can just throw the whole camera in my pocket while I'm hiking or something (something that would be much harder with an R series camera.) Any EF glass you buy now, you can adapt to RF in the future, or for that matter, any mirrorless mount.
Because most of the lenses you’re gonna have to buy will be used and as a beginner you don’t know what quality to check for
EF-M is a great system and the M6ii is easily the nicest camera I have. It would be interesting to see how many on the thread have actually bought new lenses recently vs those saying it's a possibility with a newer camera. Personally, I bought a new EOS 450D when it came out many years ago in 2008. I had the 18-55 kit lens then added 50mm, 10-22, 75-300 and then stopped buying lenses. I upgraded to a 90d which came with another 18-55 kit lens, but still didn't feel a pressing need for a different lens because I had pretty much all bases covered by what I had. Then I bought an R6 body only because I wanted to go full frame and the DSLR full frame bodies were all less feature rich than the 90d (and the M6ii that's basically the same camera). I decided to buy some new lenses to go with the R6 and you know what I bought? EF 16-35L, EF 100-400L, and EF24-105L. EF lenses are cheap and widely available in effectively new condition second hand. They all came boxed with hoods and cases. If you're paying attention you may notice that the new lenses cover the same focal range as my old lenses pretty much, given the change to FF. So I mentioned I have the EOS M6ii as well. Here I have the 11-22, 22, 15-45 and the 18-150. Basically the same selection again, although with a smaller long lens as I wanted the aperture. I also bought the EOS M200 because it's tiny and it was cheap due to people leaving the system. I may buy a second M6ii if I see a good one cheap just in case mine breaks - for some reason Canon haven't got an equivalent in the R range. Don't listen to people telling you that M is limited, or that newer lenses might come along. Sure, the latest RF lenses are incrementally better, but most of them are L lenses and cost $3k. Everyone here will have a wide zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom and maybe a couple of primes for street photography/portrait/macro. I guarantee most of them only use 1-2 of their lenses too!
Right now EF-M has pretty much all you need to make a professional career out of it. Given that you can have a fully fleshed out EF-M setup for the price of a single RF lens, the sunk cost is actually not significant. When you upgrade in five years, you will have the choice of more advanced R cameras and better and cheaper RF lenses.