[miro]

After the somewhat bumpy landing of the canonEOS R5 & R6 , Canon seems to be updating the EOS M cameras too. On paper seems interesting camera as many features match the EOS R6


https://www.canonrumors.com/new-eos-m-camera-specifications-cr1/

[Klaus]

A camera without lenses ...

And at 32mp it's going to be the same noise generator as the M6 II.

[Brightcolours]

Yes, Klaus, Yes.

An APS-C camera with only a UWA zoom, a 16mm, 22mm, 32mm, 56mm (26, 35, 50, 85mm FF equivalents) 3 standard zooms in different ranges, a macro lens, a cheap tele zoom, the entire EF and EF-S range and more lenses being developed is a camera without lenses. Especially in APS-C land, where the typical camera buyer buys a huge lens range.

DPReview saying it has excellent IQ in RAW and JPEG sure means it is a noise generator too. No wonder that photos to photons shows it to perform quite similar to for instance Nikon's Z50, Olympus' M5 III, Sony's 6500 to name a few.

[Klaus]

;-)

I knew that this would trigger you. LOL.

But seriously - when I look at the IQ comparison thingy in dpreview, the M6 II produces much higher noise levels than its 24mp peers.
Of course, that's not unexpected but it also shows that 32mp and high ISO don't go together - just as 50mp+ for FF (and to ease your pain - that also applies to the A7R IV).
You may argue that you just need to scale down but this defies the purpose really.

Compared to MFT, Sony and Fuji, the EOS M lens lineup remains poor - there isn't even a "24-xx" zoom lens and nothingness in the long tele segment.
And sorry, adapters don't count in my book - adapters are just a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that native lenses are just not available.

[Brightcolours]

;-)

I knew that this would trigger you. LOL.

But seriously - when I look at the IQ comparison thingy in dpreview, the M6 II produces much higher noise levels than its 24mp peers.
Of course, that's not unexpected but it also shows that 32mp and high ISO don't go together - just as 50mp+ for FF (and to ease your pain - that also applies to the A7R IV).
You may argue that you just need to scale down but this defies the purpose really.

Compared to MFT, Sony and Fuji, the EOS M lens lineup remains poor - there isn't even a "24-xx" zoom lens and nothingness in the long tele segment.
And sorry, adapters don't count in my book - adapters are just a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that native lenses are just not available.

But seriously, when you look at photonstophotos, you (should) realize that when printing at the same size, the noise is similar, and only in high ISO scenarios noise would be apparent. So what does the higher res. bring you? Higher res. when you want to print bigger. So, similar at high iSO and same size printing, advantage when printing bigger especially with lower ISO. 

Weird how every step up in resolution since 6mp (or probably before that too) triggers the same response from you... :-P

No idea why I would need a "native" tele lens on EOS M when with the simple adapter things work just fine. Must be my sensible nature.

[miro]

A camera without lenses ...

And at 32mp it's going to be the same noise generator as the M6 II.

1. I agree, both statements are facts and I cannot argue them.
2. I also understand the Canon position. They know that they need EOS M now to generate money and take market share /so called cash cow/, but RF mount is their future.  RF mount is their ego now, Tokyo Olympics is the event where they will measure it :-)
3. I also understand Canon fan boys. I'm also part of it. However I'm more realistic. I realise that working with adapters have never been an optimal way.

Talking about future. Few numbers tell the full story -  http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-202006_e.pdf
Please keep in mind that gadget sales exploded during the corona crisis. 

BTW: Are there any RF or Z mounts sales numbers? I estimates them under 1%

[Klaus]

Given Canon's capabilities, EOS M could be a great system. However, they made the rather stupid decision to release it with a small mount - despite being late in the market - probably due to their usual arrogance (at the time) that DSLRs are here to stay and a superior choice for "serious" photographers. So now they are in the bad position of having to support 3 different mount systems in a dying market - with no upgrade path for M-mount users.

---

But seriously, when you look at photonstophotos, you (should) realize that when printing at the same size, the noise is similar, and only in high ISO scenarios noise would be apparent. So what does the higher res. bring you? Higher res. when you want to print bigger. So, similar at high iSO and same size printing, advantage when printing bigger especially with lower ISO. 

Weird how every step up in resolution since 6mp (or probably before that too) triggers the same response from you... :-P

No idea why I would need a "native" tele lens on EOS M when with the simple adapter things work just fine. Must be my sensible nature.

It's probably because the below is more import to me than the number of megapixels beyond a certain threshold:

[miro]

Klaus have you heard about, noise shaping and oversampling?


From theory to real life - EOS R6 vs R5 . A7R vs A7S. There are plenty of examples that shows that higher pixel count has advantage , including low light and dynamic range.

[Klaus]

Of course, you will always be able to come up with counterexamples because it's not as simple as the formula suggested - there are more factors like sensor generation and, of course, the manufacturer's capabilities.

The Canon EOS R6 is a particularly bad example - as is the EOS RP. Conversely, the A7S III has a higher dynamic range than the R5 for instance - despite 4k binning in the latter.

Just to point to an extreme example - try pulling the shadows in a 20mp smartphone image vs a 20mp full format image. Good luck with that ...

Of course, your mileage may vary but in my very personal opinion, we have reached a point in the megapixel race where other factors are more important than X more megapixels.

[toni-a]

Personally I have absolutely no problem with adapters, EF and to a larger extent EFs lenses are becoming really cheap on the used market.

You can get some excellent EFs lenses for a fraction of the cost of the same lenses in fuji or Sony mount check for instance prices of
10-18, 15-85, 17-55F2.8 50f1.8,
I wouldn't mind the 32 MP sensor if you need clean high resolution images at ISO higher than 6400, you shouldn't be investing in APS-C