Let's talk about M and RF-S systems...

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that Canon sees 'R' as the upgrade path for M system users. I know that some users who have joined DPrevived, who are also DPreview M forum participants, already have been shooting with the R system as well as continuing to use their small, light M equipment.

Many think Canon see APS-C in general as a stepping stone to full-frame, but I think that's debatable, given that Canon has already provided 3 APS-C R bodies to give us a nice selection should we want to move to R and continue using APS-C sensors. True, the RF-S lens selection is currently lacking, however it doesn't seem different than the early stages of the EF-M system where new lenses were slow to roll out. It seems reasonable to assume that the RF-S 11-22 is coming, and also likely an RF-S 22mm f2, which seem to be what some are waiting for to make the leap.

When I used to read through the Canon DSLR forums on DPReview, I often got a sense that the folks there were kind of 'stuck' in the DSLR mindset, very resistant to mirrorless. I got the sense that they were partly in denial about the existence of the M system.... they'd talk about the Canon 90D's issues, never acknowledging that a sister camera (the M6ii) existed that was similar to the 90D but solved the very issues they were discussing, because it was mirrorless. I've never felt a sense in the DPReview M forum that members were 'stuck in the past' - many openly embraced and discussed the R system as a close cousin of M. I got the sense that their continued use of M was because they truly found value using it.

Now, I'd be lying if I was to deny I'm already tempted by the new RF-S bodies.... all 3 of them appear to have superior AF to even the M6ii, and better video quality. I've been tempted by an R7 at a good price used I've found... I could already use it with my 3 favorite telephoto lenses (Siggy 150-600 C, EF-S 55-250 IS STM, EF Rokinon 135mm f2) for great BIF. wildlife, and better video.

Canon's release of the R50 - which I think could be an M50ii killer (as soon as more lenses for it are available) actually surprised me... to me this feels like the 'silent' statement that they are ready to replace M, and sooner rather than later than many of us want.

If Canon were to announce the RF-S 11-22mm officially, I'd really be on the fence - as heavily invested as I am in M.

What are your thoughts on RF-S vs the M system? Have you bought an R7, R10, or R50, and if so, what are your experiences with it? What do you want to see coming in the RF-S system? What would it take, if anything, to move off the M sytem?

I am an M6II user, and I bought a R50, and recently posted a review: www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66991277

"Compact and capable" has been my main reason for using M cameras the last 7-8 years. I did not think I would go from the M6II to something that was less capable or larger. With R50 I decided to roll the dice, and even though it is a little larger than the M6II, and less capable in several ways, I like it. It's light, fun to use, produces great images, and fits into all the same bags that the M6II fit into.

However, as I indicate at the end of the review, there are things I can't do with the R50 that I can with M6II, so am keeping both, and intend to use both. M6II is not only smaller, but also more stealthy; and it has lens options you cannot match on the R50.

I have a good collection of M lenses (11-22, 15-45, 18-150, 22 and 28 macro) so will likely not move to RF-S until my 2 M bodies (M50 and M6II) die. Being the proud owner of a good copy of the EF-M 15-45, the 18-45 is a big ‘no-go’ to me due to the 3mm lost at the wide end (which I use a lot) and the narrower aperture at all focal lengths. Also, it does not look like the other RF-S lenses, based on the 18-150 and 55-210 released so far, will offer any tangible improvements over their EF-M counterparts. For the type of photography I do as an amateur (landscapes, close-ups, an occasional portrait) I don’t really need better/faster AF and the IQ from both M cameras is more than good enough for me. I am skeptical the RF-S mount will offer anything that will make me want to switch before I really need to.

That said, if I were starting from scratch and wanted to buy into an affordable APSC system I would probably skip the M and take a good look at both the R10 and the Z50. The Z50 is small, has all the features I need (for my use cases), very decent kit lenses from reviews I watched (16-50, 55-250 and 18-140), and Nikon is about to release both a 12-28 zoom and a 24 pancake. But this decision is probably many years into the future.

I saw your R50 review when you first posted it over on DPreview, in fact it's one of the things that made me sit up and pay attention, and start to take Canon's RF-S intentions more seriously. Great, detailed review and I especially liked the impressions and reasoning you included.

Dangling an affordable APS-C R option in front of us that's essentially the same size and weight as the M50ii, but with the better Digic X processor, takes the wind out of the argument that moving to R we have to move to a larger, heavier body.

As an aging, long time Canon adept and M6ii user I must admit that the R50 is the first R option that sparked my interest as it delivers the compact/low weight with advanced features that come with the digic X processor. I have mixed feelings about the appearance of virtually the same lenses as those that I already own for the M system only with the R-mount. The net gain in performance and fun in rolling the dice still seems to have a steep price tag.

On the other hand, Canon also stimulated me (as tech addicted/prosumer) to look around especially for new innovative technologies used by other brands. I noticed that especially OMD systems seems to put a lot of effort in compact and light equipment albeit in the 4/3 sensor systems. I particularly like the class leading IBIS and burst modes, the 2x crop factor seems to keep lenses very compact and their BSI sensors have very low noise at high ISO. However I have some doubts about how future-proof the 4/3 systems are and can spend my money only once as an amateur. Nevertheless, for a similar investment as switching to the Canon R50 system, significantly more performance and fun seems to be present. I also must admit that I still have a weak spot for Olympus due to the fact that I still own the OM-4 DSLR analog film camera with the fabulous manual multi-spot metering (averaging up to 8 manually selectable spots) that I bought in the 80's of last century... It is really a pity that this metering system is out of fashion and not available anymore. OK, technology has come a long way and offers many other great options today.

In the mean time I am very happy with my M6ii and I am quite eager to see the developments in Canon's attempt to keep the M-users aboard but for the time being I definitely will keep a wider than only Canon perspective.

Sorry for my nostalgic thoughts and flirt with the OM systems but all options are open to me.

Best, Leo

I have both M and R and I am feeling an increasing lack of interest in spending another dime for Canon gear.

Thank you @LarryRexley, glad to hear it.

Indeed. There's still further benefit in even smaller bodies, like M6II, or even M200. Let's see if the R can go there... (I realize the size of the mount will be a limiting factor, but I hope Canon can get creative)

Now that I have plenty of EFM lenses on my shelf, it is very difficult to move from M to R. What matters the most is not bodies but lenses. To sell my old treasures and buy new things would be painful in many ways. Moreover, the move would not give me a big benefit. Canon is not opening their mount to third parties nor offering as many RFS lenses as EFM. My memory back in the day of EFS tells me that Canon would not release RFS prime lenses such as Sigma 16, 23, and 56 f/1.4. I do not need the best AF that Bird In Flight or sports machines have. So, I would be happy with my current system unless they die. Even if my body dies, the first option to take would be to buy a used one at a good price.

KEG, just curious, were you to spend money in new gear now where would it go?

@Larry,
Until recently I had a Canon 7Dii DSLR, which I used mainly with a 100-400 telephoto for air shows and similar, along with an MFT system for more general use.

All that has changed. I now use a Canon R7 instead of the 7Dii and am totally happy I made the change. However for a more compact, more general usage system, I changed from MFT to EOS-M.

Some may feel I am crazy moving to EOS-M when Canon’s commitment to the format is almost zero. But the smaller 47mm lens throat has led to many small, compact, lightweight and quite affordable lenses that the RF format will have some difficulty copying. Plus the 32MP, DPAF M6ii was hard to resist.

Currently Canon are ensuring no other RF mount lenses are available from other manufacturers and if their EF-S lens line-up is anything to go by then an RF-S line up will be quite limited. The thought of having to use RF or even EF mount FF lenses on a compact RF-S camera like the R50 has no appeal to me for general use. Heavy, expensive and unbalanced come to mind.

The EOS-M system is far from perfect of course and the lack of any camera with IBIS is a real negative. As is the lack of an M5ii with built in EVF. But it’s all a compromise and for me the EOS-M ticks my boxes. YMMV.

I have a M6 Mark II, and a R5, and I have absolutely no interest in the RF-S system (an old unused worthless EF-S body is already lying around in an old camera bag). I would rather abandon the mount completely than migrating to RF-S.

EF-M is dead for Canon, but it won’t be dead for me for many years. It has its flaws, and the technical gap will widen further with every new Canon body released, but it is a very unique proposition and I really enjoy the camera.

I don’t think they’ll be creative with RF-S. Right now they are just flooding the market with countless bodies to reach peak saturation. Canon usually gets creative with their highest end body only.

+1

why?

So the main benefit of the RF modern cameras to me is 1) AF eye tracking is amazing and 2) the R7 and R10 have AF joysticks. I see no benefit in the R50 - and is UK£10 - $US12 cheaper only than the much more capable R10.

So I've kept one M6II - even though I have the R7 and R10 - simply as it is a very very nice camera and the EFM 11-22, 15-45 and 32mm f/1.4 are amazing vs what one can get for RFS (the sigma 56mm is great too but I just did not use it much as I often have the 60mm macro and full frame on 70-200 f/2.8 available). For casual work, the M6II is brilliant - the R's just help me with action really and the R7 handles better with long heavy lenses.

So no camera yet to persuade me to ditch the M6II - but the AF for action in the R10 and R7 is very very good compelling reason to "upgrade" or add to one's collection.

Like the 18-150 RF-S lens but really looking for the 11-22 lens, that would be ideal. The R7 is great but the 18-150mm is not wide enough which is a big
limitation for the RF-S setup. I have the m6 mark 2 with 11-22 and almost all the m series lenses. Seems line Canon is thinking more about bodies than lenses which is bad short coming. Lenses will last not bodies..

Give them some time…it’s been a year or so only since the first RF aps-c body was released…the 11-22 (or something similar) and the 22 pancake will come. For the other primes there is a full collection already of light, affordable lenses…16, 24, 35, 50, 85…same roadmap as Nikon who is about to release a 12-28 and 24 pancake (and had the first Z crop body launched in 2019).

Photography beginners also think more about bodies than lenses, hence my opinion that they’re just trying to saturate the market now and cater to every possible customer who’ll maybe buy just one additional lens (kit lens not included).