EOS-M is Dead. So where’s my RF Equivalents?

[Makmut]

I have the M62 and I think it's a great camera. It's not perfect, nor are the lenses, but at least you have the option to change for a slight improvement. The way the LCD screen flips, the relatively small size and weight and many useful features make it a perfect all-round travel companion. The ultimate test for a new small camera with interchangeable lenses is my winter jacket pocket test - It has to fit!

 

[osakawayne]

I know it is not related to the EOS-M system discussion, but an RF-S lens I wish more than anything else that Canon would make, is a modern mirrorless replacement of the "prosumer quality" RF-S 15-85mm. And yes, the 15mm is very important, but also give it some reach. If not 15-85mm then at least 15-70mm. I recently had an accident with my old 15-85mm and afterwards photos had an unsharp area in the right side of the lens. And while maybe not everyone would notice, it definitely annoyed me enough to stop using it. I tried using EF-S 17-55/2.8 and Sigma 17-40/1.8 instead, but while they definitely are good lenses for some purposes, they just wasn't anywhere near the 15-85mm as a general purpose zoom. So I found myself suddenly bringing my Powershot G5 X II on all my casual walks instead of my EOS R7. I have a lot of RF lenses, but my RF mount camera was suddenly very uninteresting without the 15-85mm as my bread and potatoes lens.

I was lucky, I recently found a new good used copy of the 15-85mm. The seller claims he only (bought and) used the lens on a 2-week vacation in 2011. And I have no reason not to believe him. But better still, would be an updated modern RF-mount version.

The Sigma RF-S 18-50mm f2.8 is pretty much a perfect travel, all around compact and sharp lens. It's my main lens for my aps-c setup. Not sure Canon even needs to make anything to match it unless they add IS.

 

[David - Sydney]

Speaking of pancake lenses, I have never understood why Canon haven't released a RF version of the EF40/2.8. A third of the weight and length of the RF42/1.2 and adapting the EF version cost so much more and doubled the length and weight.

I realise that it was full frame and this discussion is for crop but the same applies to the EF-M 22/2.
I wonder if Canon could have used the combination to meet some of the resurgent demand for compact cameras or even as competition for Fuji's compact sized options.

The R100 is 2.5 years old and should be updated. If I recall, the lifeycle for Rebels etc was less than the 4 year cycle for full frame bodies.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Speaking of pancake lenses, I have never understood why Canon haven't released a RF version of the EF40/2.8. A third of the weight and length of the RF42/1.2 and adapting the EF version cost so much more and doubled the length and weight.

The simplest (thus generally smallest, lightest, and/or cheapest) pancake designs are those with focal lengths near or slightly longer than the flange distance. It’s not an absolute requirement but it minimizes compromises. The EF 40/2.8 is close to the 42mm EF flange distance.

From a design perspective, the RF 28/2.8 is the pancake successor to the EF 40/2.8, given the 20mm RF flange distance. The RF 28/2.8 is only 2mm longer than the EF 40/2.8.

 

[Quack]

Where are the equivalents?....

Seems there are 2 likely answers.
1) They did not sell well enough to make RF-S equivalents.
2) They will make them, but are not high priority.

The fact that Canon Forum users cry out for them, does not in any way indicate that they would sell well. To repeat for the nth time on the forum, we are not the target market.

 

[David - Sydney]

The simplest (thus generally smallest, lightest, and/or cheapest) pancake designs are those with focal lengths near or slightly longer than the flange distance. It’s not an absolute requirement but it minimizes compromises. The EF 40/2.8 is close to the 42mm EF flange distance.

From a design perspective, the RF 28/2.8 is the pancake successor to the EF 40/2.8, given the 20mm RF flange distance. The RF 28/2.8 is only 2mm longer than the EF 40/2.8.

Thanks, I learn something every day!

 

[Richard CR]

Speaking of pancake lenses, I have never understood why Canon haven't released a RF version of the EF40/2.8. A third of the weight and length of the RF42/1.2 and adapting the EF version cost so much more and doubled the length and weight.

you have it already. the RF28mm f/2.8 STM is it.

pancakes only really work around the registration distance aka the distance from the sensor to flange as the focal length - so for the RF case, that would be around 20mm (aka the 28mm). for the EF mount, since it was 44mm distance, we got a 40mm lens. which is why the EF-M got a 22mm.

most of the pancakes are modelled off the Zeiss Tessar design which had that design requirement.

 

[Richard CR]

The simplest (thus generally smallest, lightest, and/or cheapest) pancake designs are those with focal lengths near or slightly longer than the flange distance. It’s not an absolute requirement but it minimizes compromises. The EF 40/2.8 is close to the 42mm EF flange distance.

From a design perspective, the RF 28/2.8 is the pancake successor to the EF 40/2.8, given the 20mm RF flange distance. The RF 28/2.8 is only 2mm longer than the EF 40/2.8.

oh derp, neuro answered it already. sorry.

 

[Richard CR]

Where are the equivalents?....

Seems there are 2 likely answers.
1) They did not sell well enough to make RF-S equivalents.
2) They will make them, but are not high priority.

The fact that Canon Forum users cry out for them, does not in any way indicate that they would sell well. To repeat for the nth time on the forum, we are not the target market.

depends, some of us are. There's a wide variety of use cases. Hell, even Craig Mr .. I'll die on my L glass hill is seeing the benefits of the smaller and cheaper lenses when paired with software-based mathematical lens correction

Canon has rarely treated its APS-C ecosystem with any sort of urgency, but it's more than just the lenses, it's the bodies as well.

 

[SnowMiku]

I have heard a few reports on here that the R7 has Shutter Shock, is that only if you use it with Mechanical Shutter? Or does it also have shutter shock using EFCS?

It's strange how my 90D has the EFCS option in live view, and the M6 doesn't even though it's got the same sensor.

 

[eero]

Great article. I often prefer to carry my M6ii instead of the big R5 or R6ii. Such a great camera! It was super irritating to hear the youtube marketing parrots talk about R7 as the "first mirrorless crop-sensor from Canon" when it came out, dismissing the whole M-line. It sounded like a paid pitch from Canon since everyone was repeating the same, and no one even mentioned the M-line. Such a disgrace, a funeral without a funeral.

 

[dcm]

I have heard a few reports on here that the R7 has Shutter Shock, is that only if you use it with Mechanical Shutter? Or does it also have shutter shock using EFCS?

It's strange how my 90D has the EFCS option in live view, and the M6 doesn't even though it's got the same sensor.

Prior threads discussed this for various bodies. I posted a discussion a while back comparing electronic and manual shutters on bodies, but the link no longer works and search doesn't find the thread. It was noticeable on tripods, more so on a 1 series Gitzo Traveler versus a 3 series Gitzo Systematic. Appears related to 1) smaller/lighter bodies/lenses, 2) denser pixels, 3) longer focal lengths or lenses. The shock was more noticeable on my M series than 6D/1DX2, and with the EF-M lenses versus adapted EF lenses. I believe it's been mentioned R5's with higher pixel density also sometimes exhibit this. It was more noticeable on longer focal lengths, but a few short lenses also exhibited this so the aperture mechanism may also be at play when stopping down.

To address this I shifted the exposure algorithm two notches to favor faster shutter speeds on the M's. This seemed to address most of my issues.

I haven't been as pleased with the R7 as I expected, with more "soft" photos than normal, but I'm primarily shooting RF 100-400 and RF 800 lenses. I haven't taken the time to determine if this is shutter shock or some other cause. I don't see the same issues with R6m2 and R8 bodies so it may be a possibility.

 

[blackcoffee17]

To me, it almost seems like Canon is getting ready to ditch their APS-C lineup, which so far has been treated like a stepchild.

Even in EF days, APS-C was threated like that. Lens selection was always limited to cheap dark zooms and kit lenses with very few exceptions, like the 17-55.

 

[masterpix]

Okay, it's been over 3 years since the RF-S lineup was released by Canon, and they have yet to really capitalize on what those cameras were. I know some people dismiss the EOS-M system and what it was for Canon and wanted it to die (Ahem, Craig), but for me, anyway, it was the perfect […]

See full article...

long time ago, when the RF system just came out, I was critisized fro saying that the M series will be eventually abandoned for a crop RF camera and mostly lenses. But time shows that it is the logic in keeping one line of lenses is the crrect path for any camera brand. For lenses aer used for much longer period of time than camaras. For example I use the same EF lenses that I bought for my 7D even that I changes to RF camera.

 

[David_B]

Okay, it's been over 3 years since the RF-S lineup was released by Canon, and they have yet to really capitalize on what those cameras were. I know some people dismiss the EOS-M system and what it was for Canon and wanted it to die (Ahem, Craig), but for me, anyway, it was the perfect […]

See full article...

The EF-M 11-22 was also collapsable and doesn't have a straight replacement - all wide angle RF lenses have compromised optical designs, IMHO.

 

[Richard CR]

I have heard a few reports on here that the R7 has Shutter Shock, is that only if you use it with Mechanical Shutter? Or does it also have shutter shock using EFCS?

It's strange how my 90D has the EFCS option in live view, and the M6 doesn't even though it's got the same sensor.

any pure mechanical shutter will have shutter shock, but EFCS is usually used to eliminate it.

the nerf of EFCS on the M6 mark II was odd.

 

[Bob Howland]

long time ago, when the RF system just came out, I was critisized fro saying that the M series will be eventually abandoned for a crop RF camera and mostly lenses. But time shows that it is the logic in keeping one line of lenses is the crrect path for any camera brand. For lenses aer used for much longer period of time than camaras. For example I use the same EF lenses that I bought for my 7D even that I changes to RF camera.

Big bulky EF lenses never felt right on my R5 (correction: M5). I bought them to work on a 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D. They feel right at home on an R7 and R6-2. Canon could have kept the M series and also introduced the RF series. But they didn't. Why? The EF SL1, SL2 and SL3 were also tiny, slightly larger than the M5, and they were popular. Maybe Canon decided that having a large lens mount on a small body was acceptable.

 

[Tom R5R7]

There are a couple of EF-S lenses also that are missing. No F/2.8 zoom. No f/4 zoom, just a couple of slow "kit" lenses.

Canon wants you to go full frame.

 

[Tom R5R7]

The EF-M 11-22 was also collapsable and doesn't have a straight replacement - all wide angle RF lenses have compromised optical designs, IMHO.

Yeah, software to replace optics. Which is fine to a point, but if you want pinpoint stars out to the corners, you're not likely going to get it when the software is used to turn the semi-fisheye lens into a rectilinear image.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, software to replace optics. Which is fine to a point, but if you want pinpoint stars out to the corners, you're not likely going to get it when the software is used to turn the semi-fisheye lens into a rectilinear image.

Optical correction isn’t perfect, either. I’m not sure why some people think that correcting an image with glass is the gold standard, there is no perfect lens and compromises are made on the optical side, too. I can’t say this is true in all cases, but when I compared the RF 14-35/4L to the EF 11-24/4L at 14mm (where the RF lens has enough barrel distortion that it requires correction to fill the black corners and the EF lens has essentially no geometric distortion), I found that there was no meaningful difference in corner sharpness. Then again, I did not test with astrophotography, a use case where Canon lenses generally perform poorly (though the RF 15-35/2.8 and RF 20/1.4 are exceptions to that, both have minimal coma and astigmatism even in the extreme corners).