[MatjazO]

Why do everyone think that the 135 format is the solution to everything?

Not everyone.   
Those that think so seem to be among more vocal, though. 

[Brightcolours]

EOS M is going to die soon. That system just doesn't make any sense.

Why does it not make any sense?
After all, not everyone want or need a 135 format system (with large and very expensive lenses).
If Canon were to provides descent bodies and lenses for their EOS-M mount, the system would be quite attractive actually.
They are just too short sighted to see it (as Nikon it seems).

I think this segment is already occupied by oter APS-C or µ4/3 manufacturers. The only thing Canon could do was gving the users long teles - these lack in a Fuji system. But then, these teles are not cheap nor lightweight...

The longer lenses get, the less difference it makes in weight/price whether it is APS-C or FF. 
Canon has enough tele lenses, it just lacks lower priced ones (like Nikon has been introducing).

But most serious photographers do gravitate towards FF... So the incentive to make relatively expensive tele options seems to lay with the manufacturers who have no FF to offer (Olympus, Fuji).

---

Nonsense

Count the camera models and then rethink "overcrowded"... and from the L-mount alliance there's still the first model to hit the shelves. So don't count non-existing choices in.

And also, don't forget Sony's APS-C attempts.

Given the small differences in size and costs, I really want to know why going on with APS-C. Each FF can do it as well, if it's only the crop factor.

There is Leica in the L-mount alliance and they have bodies available today.
I'm talking about manufacturers. The 135 format is going to get overcrowded very fast.
Granted, I forgot about Sony APS-C but clearly Sony doesn't care about it, focusing exclusively on 135. The 135 format has many more players than in ML APS-C. This is fact.

In terms of cost, there is a huge difference between ML 135 and ML APS-C. 
For instance a Fuji X-T100 or an EOS-M50 can be had with a kit lens for 600 CHF. Where can I get a ML 135 for that price?
If one consider MFT, an Olympus E-M10 Mk II with kit lens can be had for 450 CHF.
Why do everyone think that the 135 format is the solution to everything?

You answered your own question.
APS-C public often just gets a "kit lens" or two. That is its main public. The more serious/professional/artistic crowd spends money on specialized lenses and FF, mainly.

So yeah, there still is a place for EOS M.. The APS-C public which gets a kit lens and 1 or 2 other lenses (an UWA zoom, or the "street photography" 22mm, or a 32mm f1.4 "fast normal". or 55-200mm).

[MatjazO]

That is what Canon would like you to believe. And succeeds in case of some, obviously. Nothing wrong with it by itself, yet exactly why EOS M is a system not considered seriously by many.

[thxbb12]

Brightcolours

The longer lenses get, the less difference it makes in weight/price whether it is APS-C or FF. 
Canon has enough tele lenses, it just lacks lower priced ones (like Nikon has been introducing).

But most serious photographers do gravitate towards FF... So the incentive to make relatively expensive tele options seems to lay with the manufacturers who have no FF to offer (Olympus, Fuji).

The longer the lens, the more interesting a smaller format becomes due to the crop factor. Hence, at equivalent focal length the smaller format is much smaller. I have yet to see a FF equivalent to the compact Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 or 35-100 f4-5.6. Such FF lenses don't exist (70-200 f5.6 or 70-200 f8-11.2).
As far as gravitating towards FF, this is purely a manufacturer decision, not a customers one.

You answered your own question.
APS-C public often just gets a "kit lens" or two. That is its main public. The more serious/professional/artistic crowd spends money on specialized lenses and FF, mainly.

So yeah, there still is a place for EOS M.. The APS-C public which gets a kit lens and 1 or 2 other lenses (an UWA zoom, or the "street photography" 22mm, or a 32mm f1.4 "fast normal". or 55-200mm).

I didn't answer my own question, I merely gave examples debunking Joju's claim "Given the small differences in size and costs, I really want to know why going on with APS-C."

I strongly believe that a lot of people go into FF for the status symbol it brings, not because they truly need it or for the "artistic" value it may provide in some specific circumstances (for the same reason many MF shooters claim they need MF over FF).

There is no reason why FF is the sensor size of choice. It's arbitrary and only stems from history.

[Brightcolours]

Brightcolours

The longer lenses get, the less difference it makes in weight/price whether it is APS-C or FF. 
Canon has enough tele lenses, it just lacks lower priced ones (like Nikon has been introducing).

But most serious photographers do gravitate towards FF... So the incentive to make relatively expensive tele options seems to lay with the manufacturers who have no FF to offer (Olympus, Fuji).

The longer the lens, the more interesting a smaller format becomes due to the crop factor. Hence, at equivalent focal length the smaller format is much smaller. I have yet to see a FF equivalent to the compact Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 or 35-100 f4-5.6. Such FF lenses don't exist (70-200 f5.6 or 70-200 f8-11.2).
As far as gravitating towards FF, this is purely a manufacturer decision, not a customers one.

You answered your own question.
APS-C public often just gets a "kit lens" or two. That is its main public. The more serious/professional/artistic crowd spends money on specialized lenses and FF, mainly.

So yeah, there still is a place for EOS M.. The APS-C public which gets a kit lens and 1 or 2 other lenses (an UWA zoom, or the "street photography" 22mm, or a 32mm f1.4 "fast normal". or 55-200mm).

I didn't answer my own question, I merely gave examples debunking Joju's claim "Given the small differences in size and costs, I really want to know why going on with APS-C."

I strongly believe that a lot of people go into FF for the status symbol it brings, not because they truly need it or for the "artistic" value it may provide in some specific circumstances (for the same reason many MF shooters claim they need MF over FF).

There is no reason why FF is the sensor size of choice. It's arbitrary and only stems from history.

You haven't seen a FF 70-200mm f5.6 because there already are 70-200mm f4 and 70-300mm f4-5.6 lenses.
A 70-200mm f8-11 is just as silly as a MFT equivalent, and won't sell. Might as well just get a compact powerzoom camera.

[Klaus]

Even IF EOS M sells well - and it doesn't do so in all world regions - will it continue to sell well now that Canon had a superior mirrorless system?
You can't mount RF lenses on EOS M so there isn't even a natural upgrade path.
The pace of new releases for the system has been pathetic and now that Canon is finally smelling the blood in the FF arena, that'll get worse.
The situation over at EF-S is almost as bad, BTW. When was the last exciting EF-S lens announcement? I can't even remember anymore.

[thxbb12]

re: brightcolors
Your comparisons are inaccurate: both the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300 are huge compared to the 35-100 f2.8.
The 70-200 f8-11 equiv combined with a MFT body provides much better IQ than a powerzoom cam.

[toni-a]

Remember executives at Canon care for one thing most : profit
they are selling tons of 4000D 800D and M50 I am sure this is where they are making most money
besides entry level model customers are future pro gear customers
This sector will always remain a priority for them
now they have two options:
keep EOS M
introduce APS-C EOS-R which will have the following advantages:
sounds more "professional" for customers
has an upgrade path to full frame
simplify the line
most EOS-M users are getting body plus kit lens few are getting anything more anyway so dumping it isn't a big loss it was an intermediate system just like canon T series

[JJ_SO]

Nonsense

Count the camera models and then rethink "overcrowded"... and from the L-mount alliance there's still the first model to hit the shelves. So don't count non-existing choices in.

And also, don't forget Sony's APS-C attempts.

Given the small differences in size and costs, I really want to know why going on with APS-C. Each FF can do it as well, if it's only the crop factor.

There is Leica in the L-mount alliance and they have bodies available today.
I'm talking about manufacturers. The 135 format is going to get overcrowded very fast.
Granted, I forgot about Sony APS-C but clearly Sony doesn't care about it, focusing exclusively on 135. The 135 format has many more players than in ML APS-C. This is fact.

In terms of cost, there is a huge difference between ML 135 and ML APS-C. 
For instance a Fuji X-T100 or an EOS-M50 can be had with a kit lens for 600 CHF. Where can I get a ML 135 for that price?
If one consider MFT, an Olympus E-M10 Mk II with kit lens can be had for 450 CHF.
Why do everyone think that the 135 format is the solution to everything?

Now you really should take a very deep breath, Florent. Currently there's one single L-mount FF body around, the Leica SL, which sets you back for 6450 CHF - body only. Then there are three APS-C Leicas, the CL is one of the most expensive (2500 CHF) APS-C bodies around. The kit lens (!) goes for 1700 CHF... that's one of the "cheapest" you can get for L-mount, a 90/2 APO would cost 5520.- CHF

In your post you mention other cheap APS-C or µ 4/3 models. I find that very bizarre that you mention the super expensive high end L-system with only one body available and judge the 135 ML market as "overcrowded".

At the time of film cameras there were manufacturers with a lot more models than we see today. And the "historic stems of 135 format" at least led to a huge selection of MF lenses, much more than there ever will be available for the in-between APS-C stuff which never was more than a niche product (Olympus Pen and a couple of half-format Yashicas in film era), simply because bigger sensors were to costly to make and sell. I agree, there's a lot of coincidence in the 24×36 mm format and I don't fully understand why it has become so popular, but I guess the developing machinery for the films were already existing, the cameras cheaper to manufacture than MF and the films came from perforated movie material - so available in a bigger and cheaper selection than MF. There was enough production power behind that format.

135 is not "the solution for everything" and I don't have the feeling anybody ever said so. But APS-C or µ 4/3 are also not a solution for everything - in fact, they fall rather short as soon as it comes to wide angle lenses, but shine in tele (which are not really available from Fuji...). So, it's just the right tools for the job, nothing more or less. I do not see that big diff between these formats, not even in lenses: A Fuji 16/1.4 sells for 888.- CHF, a Sigma 24/1.4 for 745.-. I could bring other examples to show it's not cheaper to make great small, yet fast lenses. If you can live with slow zooms, great. I can't for what I want to do, and I need high ISO regularly, I sometime order big prints and I don't do so to show off, so speak for yourself

An A1 print out of a Fuji or µ 4/3  is more likely disappointing. And I always can go to APS-C with each FX model.

[thxbb12]

Now you really should take a very deep breath, Florent. Currently there's one single L-mount FF body around, the Leica SL, which sets you back for 6450 CHF - body only. Then there are three APS-C Leicas, the CL is one of the most expensive (2500 CHF) APS-C bodies around. The kit lens (!) goes for 1700 CHF... that's one of the "cheapest" you can get for L-mount, a 90/2 APO would cost 5520.- CHF

In your post you mention other cheap APS-C or µ 4/3 models. I find that very bizarre that you mention the super expensive high end L-system with only one body available and judge the 135 ML market as "overcrowded".

At the time of film cameras there were manufacturers with a lot more models than we see today. And the "historic stems of 135 format" at least led to a huge selection of MF lenses, much more than there ever will be available for the in-between APS-C stuff which never was more than a niche product (Olympus Pen and a couple of half-format Yashicas in film era), simply because bigger sensors were to costly to make and sell. I agree, there's a lot of coincidence in the 24×36 mm format and I don't fully understand why it has become so popular, but I guess the developing machinery for the films were already existing, the cameras cheaper to manufacture than MF and the films came from perforated movie material - so available in a bigger and cheaper selection than MF. There was enough production power behind that format.

135 is not "the solution for everything" and I don't have the feeling anybody ever said so. But APS-C or µ 4/3 are also not a solution for everything - in fact, they fall rather short as soon as it comes to wide angle lenses, but shine in tele (which are not really available from Fuji...). So, it's just the right tools for the job, nothing more or less. I do not see that big diff between these formats, not even in lenses: A Fuji 16/1.4 sells for 888.- CHF, a Sigma 24/1.4 for 745.-. I could bring other examples to show it's not cheaper to make great small, yet fast lenses. If you can live with slow zooms, great. I can't for what I want to do, and I need high ISO regularly, I sometime order big prints and I don't do so to show off, so speak for yourself

An A1 print out of a Fuji or µ 4/3  is more likely disappointing. And I always can go to APS-C with each FX model.

About FF ML being overcrowded vs APS-C: at present there are 4 FF manufacturers: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica. Very soon there will be Panasonic and Sigma which brings this number to 6! The number of bodies will likely greatly increase. Remember: it's just starting.  In comparison APS-C has Fuji, Sony, Leica and Canon. Sony is very likely a dead end as well as Canon. We'll see in 5 years, but it seems pretty obvious that the ML FF space is much more crowded than its APS-C counterpart.

Regarding the "right tool for the job", I 100% agree with you and I'm not saying that there is a single format for all use cases. I was just saying that I strongly believe that a lot of people get into FF solely to be perceived as "pro"(and no, I wasn't saying you're part of this crowd).

Instead of comparing the Sigma 24 f1.4 which is a 3rd party option to the Fuji 16 f1.4, you should consider a Nikon or Canon one. For instance the Nikon 24 f1.4 sells for nearly 1800 CHF. Not exactly in the same price category as the Fuji ;-)