 |
Chain surfing Canon EOS M50 EF-M 18-150mm lens A compact, handy kit. |
As camera makers struggle to manage falling sales and supply constraints we can see them cutting product lines and streamlining their catalogues. At the same time they are moving upmarket where profit margins are higher.
It appears that enthusiast photographers are quite willing, enthusiastic even, to invest in expensive camera gear so that represents a win for both sellers and buyers.
But in the process we see that budget cameras are becoming an endangered species.
Which brings me to the subject of this post which is the Canon EOS-M system of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) and EF-M lenses.
The original EOS-M camera, names simply EOS-M was introduced in 2012, very likely as Canon’s answer to the then very popular Sony NEX line of compact MILCs using the Sony E mount.
The EOS-M was Canon’s first MILC. It used a completely new lens mount with a throat diameter of 47mm and a flangeback distance of 18mm.
EF-M lenses can be mounted directly and EF and EF-S lenses can be used via an adapter.
The EOS-M was a basic compact MILC with 18 Mpx, Digic5 processor, no EVF and no handle.
Unlike Sony which went all-out to market the NEX series cameras, Canon took a much more low key approach with the EOS-M which was not even marketed in north America initially.
In 2013 and 2014 Canon followed up the EOS-M with……nothing.
 |
Coastal erosion EOS M50, EF-M 18-150mm lens |
In retrospect I think we can see portents of the end of EOS-M right there at the half-hearted, uncommitted beginning of the system.
In 2015 we got the M10 which was just a slight upgrade of the M and the M3 with Digic6, a handle and 24 Mpx.
2016 saw the arrival of the M5. This was the first M series model which might have been attractive to enthusiast photographers. It brought dual pixel AF, Digic7, a proper handle, touch screen, a nice, over the optical axis EVF and a nice set of controls with 4 dials. Unfortunately the M5 had several performance deficiencies such as a long blackout time after each shot which made it rather less appealing in practice than the spec sheet might have promised.
For reasons known only to their inscrutable selves, the product development people at Canon never updated the M5. I see this as the second inflexion point along the pathway to the end of the M system.
From the M5 the M system retreated to models characterised mainly by compact dimensions.
 |
Height is the only camera body dimension constrained by mount diameter. Yet here we see the full frame EOS RP has less height than the M50. Canon can and I think will make some RF mount cameras housing an APSC sensor. I expect these will be comparable in size to current EOS-M bodies. |
In 2017 we got the M100 which was another compact style model with no EVF or handle and the M6 which used Digic7 and the 24 Mpx sensor but removed the built in EVF. You could mount a clip-on accessory EVF if desired.
The M50 (Kiss-M in Japan) came in 2018 with Digic8, built-in EVF over the optical axis, handle, 24 Mpx and fully articulated touch screen but a downgraded set of controls with only one dial. Despite this the M50 proved very popular with photographers and vloggers and I believe sold well.
I bought an M50 and found it a fun camera to use notwithstanding the limited control set and performance.
The M50 received a mild upgrade in 2020 to the M50.2 with some performance and capability enhancements.
2019 saw the arrival of the M6.2. I think this model epitomises Canon’s ongoing ambivalence with the M series.
The M6.2 brought some upgrades in the form of an all-new 32 Mpx sensor, Digic8, a nice set of controls, very good performance and capable AF servo on moving subjects.
But the hand which giveth also taketh away. The M6.2 has no built-in EVF (you can add one), the screen is not fully articulated and for some unknown and never explained reason electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) is not available, leading to the possibility of shutter shock with some lenses.
I bought an M6.2 and found it quite frustrating, neither fish nor fowl. Performance and focus is good but the clip-on EVF is a complete nuisance, the flip-up-down monitor limited in capability and the occasional appearance of blurred images due to shutter shock an unwelcome surprise.
The M200 also appeared in 2019. This is a slight upgrade of the M100, adding Digic8 capability.
And that is yer lot for M system bodies.
At the time of writing it appears that the M6.2 is discontinued leaving just the M200 and M50.2 still available new in Australia.
 |
Gore Hill cemetery. Canon EOS M50 with EF-M 22mm f2 lens. One of the more appealing lenses in the M system. |
Lenses
Now for the lenses. I have owned and used and tested each of the Canon EF-M lenses except the 18-55mm.
Some factoids about Canon EF-M lenses:
There have been 8 altogether over a 10 year time frame, with 7 being nominally current offerings. This might be the least lens support offered by any camera maker for any system in history.
Each uses a stepping motor for focus.
Each has an exterior diameter of 61mm, for what reason I have no idea. They use different filter sizes however.
Canon’s rollout of EF-M lenses shows the same lack of commitment to the system that we saw with the bodies.
The first lens in 2012 was the EF-M 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM standard kit zoom which was sold with most bodies until it was replaced by the EF-M 15-45mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM in 2015.
The best things about the 15-45mm are that it is small and cheap. It has a full frame equivalent of 24-72mm at f5.6-f10.
Optical quality suffers from considerable sample variation. The best samples are just OK if one is not too fussy and the worst are unsatisfactory in my view.
Canon has never offered a really good standard kit zoom for the M series. Quel dommage.
In 2012 we also saw the EF-M 22mm f2 STM. This is a really nice little prime equivalent to a full frame 35mm f3.2. It is not expensive but is still sharp, focusses quickly and makes consistently good pictures. The only downside is it lacks a stabiliser and none of the EOS-M bodies has an in-body stabiliser.
In 2013 the EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM ultrawide zoom arrived. Full frame equivalent would be 17.6-35mm f6.4-9. This is another really nice lens. It is compact, reasonably priced, gives a genuinely ultrawide field of view, is sharp across the frame and focusses fast.
The only real downside is the very small aperture which could limit its usefulness indoors.
The EF-M 55-200mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM arrived in 2014. This gives a full frame equivalent of 88-320mm f7.2-10. This lens is or was sometimes offered as part of a kit with a body and the 15-45mm standard zoom.
I have managed to get some good pictures with the 55-200mm but also too many not-so-good ones. Problems have been focus inaccuracies and inconsistent sharpness. This lens is like the 15-45mm. It is not much good but as Harry Belafonte sang, it cover’ de groun’. It makes the lens catalogue look better in the brochure than it really is in practice.
2016 saw the arrival of the RF-M 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 IS STM. This gives a full frame equivalent of 29-240mm f5.6-10. I found this lens prone to considerable sample variation with some copies having unacceptable decentering leading to softness on one side of the frame.
A good copy delivers decent image quality across the frame at all focal lengths and makes a much better standard zoom than the 15-45mm. It is quite expensive though, costing more than the full frame RF 24-105mm STM so you really have to wonder whether the M system is such a good investment.
2016 saw the arrival of an unusual prime lens in the form of the EF-M 28mm f3.5 Macro IS STM. This gives a full frame equivalent of 45mm f5.6. This is the only one of the three Canon EF-M primes with an image stabiliser, which is said by Canon to be a hybrid type especially suitable for hand held close-up work.
It can function as a good quality general purpose lens with a “normal” field of view.
But it is also a true macro lens offering up to 1.2x magnification. It has two LED “macro lites” built in to help with subject illumination when the front element of the lens is very close to the subject.
The last of the EF-M lenses from Canon is the 32mm f1.4 STM which was introduced in 2018. This gives a full frame equivalent of 51mm f2.2. It has a complex optical formulation consisting of 14 elements in 8 groups with one aspheric. It is the most expensive Canon EF-M lens.
On my tests it is optically superb, delivering excellent sharpness and contrast across the frame right from f1.4. The downsides are that it lacks a stabiliser and autofocus is slow and jerky on either the M6.2 or the M50.
It also costs more than twice as much as the smaller full frame RF 50mm f1.8 which actually delivers better image quality as it is fronting a full frame sensor.
I have used and tested both the M6.2+EF-M 32mm f1.4 combination and the EOS RP +RF50mm f1.8 combination and found the full frame kit delivers better picture quality.
My prognosis
I think it is rather clear that the M system has never been fully supported by Canon and is now in slow decline, drifting slowly to its inevitable demise.
What’s the future for Canon APSC ?
In the last year or so there have been many rumors of one or more Canon cameras with the RF mount and an APSC sensor.
On the other hand I am unaware of any rumors of new EOS-M bodies or EF-M lenses.
I think that Canon will progressively wind down and eventually cease production of all EF-M, EF-S and in due course full frame EF bodies and lenses in favour of the future facing RF mount mirrorless bodies and lenses.
I think it likely that they will offer one or two EOS-R bodies with an APSC sensor. They already have the required technology.
One of these could be a replacement for the ageing EOS 7D.2 body designed for sport/action with a high frame rate and strong AF Servo operation. The existing RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS USM zoom lens could work very well with such a body giving an effective 140-640mm focal length range assuming Canon retains its existing APSC sensor size.
Another might be an entry level camera pitched below the RP or its replacement in the price/size/performance hierarchy.
The question remains whether Canon will make some RF mount lenses which can only cover the crop sensor size. Nikon and Sony do this causing confusion among consumers who reasonably expect that for instance, any Nikon Z mount lens should be suitable for any Z mount body, which turns out not to be the case.