>>3807271>The Canon EOS M cameras that have a similar form factor don't even have a viewfinder, Aside from the M50 and M50 Mark II, there's the M5, which is essentially their pro-thusiast version (*5 like the 5D and R5), which will likely be replaced by an M5 Mark II with IBIS in the next year or so--or at least there is a patent for such technology. Meanwhile, the M6 Mark II (*6 like the 6D and R6 indicates a step down from *5) is very capable, even with the accessory viewfinder, although it is NOT intended to usurp the EOS R, and that's probably the greatest weakness of the system. If they wanted to market this to "pros," they would have more native primes or literally a single constant aperture zoom.
What's often missed is the fact that while the lenses aren't really "pro-specked" like how Fuji did it with their metal barrels, weather sealing, f/2.8 zooms and fast primes, what *is* true about EF-M lenses is that they are universally small and light. The 11-22mm wide angle zoom is the smallest and lightest wide angle zoom that Canon (or maybe any company) makes, AND it has IS. Even the 55-200mm telephoto zoom is ridiculously compact and light for a 320mm equivalent. The 28mm f/3.5 macro may not seem too impressive on paper, but again, it has some really interesting features, like IS, a built-in LED and 1:1.2x magnification ability.
You can also adapt EF and EF-S lenses, of which there are many to choose from. I think a lot of people compare systems and they don't take that into consideration. Compare to XF and there are a lot of BIG, heavy, fast XF lenses, long telephoto zooms, stuff like that. But why would you need an EF-M version of the VERY HEAVY XF 16-55 f/2.8 when Canon already has the excellent EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 that you can just adapt? The EF-S 17-55/2.8 is also heavy, but so are similar lenses in other systems.
>Also, apparently their pancake lens (22mm) is terribly slow.I mean... f/2 is pretty fast, though, right?
