You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling
Upvote
0
You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.why would they still want to develop lenses for a dead mount???? absolutely baffling
You're wanting Canon to kill off their best-selling cameras? That makes a lot of business sense.
The only mount that is dead is EF (and EF-S). If the announcement about the 5D range being canned is true you can be pretty sure Canon won't launch any new EF or EF-S lenses in the future.
EF-M is far from a dead mount, it's Canon's highest-selling mount.
Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).
It's best selling for now. Way overdue for Canon to explore ways to migrate those users to the RF mount, thus consolidating all of the mounts which are dead or just limping along (EF-M, EF-S).
These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...You're right, the EF-M isn't dead, not yet, but it's limping along now on just one bad leg, waiting for Canon to put it out of its misery with an RF mount shaped bullet. People watching from the sidelines might be cheering it on, hoping it'll survive for just a few more painful years so that they can hope (in vain) that Canon will give them (1) the mythical adapter which will let them use their old EF-M lenses on new bodies or (2) the (frankly delusional) premium lenses which perform on the same level as the newer RF lenses but costing only a mere fraction of the price. Truth is, it is the inconvenient truth that Canon will find it more financially and technically plausible to consolidate all of the mounts, and that the EF-M mount will go the way of its older brothers, the EF and the EF-S. And those cheerleaders on the sidelines will have to go through the inevitable five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.
Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!
Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.
These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...
I don't really have a ton of brand loyalty. If they bring RF to the price/size/weight/quality level of the M mount, I'm there because why the hell not? If they don't and they end the M line, I'll do one of the following:They're big, heavy and expensive because they're currently catering to the professional and advanced amateur users. But as you rightly pointed out, it's past due for Canon to introduce a smaller body (with the RF mount) and the relevant lenses to cater to other users beyond the above two.
Yes, I agree it's going to be difficult for Canon to kill of the M mount. But I think it is going to be inevitable, because it's going to become very cumbersome having two incompatible mirrorless systems. In fact, I'd say Canon's reluctance to expand the M lens system is a sign that they've always been aware that at some point they'll probably have to kill it off, and it'd be embarrassing if they did this after getting people to buy into a more comprehensive range of lenses.That was true at a time where you had computational limits. Now that the camera can use full time tracking, the image quality is vastly improved with IBIS. Early versions mostly induced unacceptable levels of warping. The examples on Canon’s iteration looks really good.
Canon camera’s current cash cow is the EOS-M. Killing it off would be disastrous. There will be plenty of consumer need for a sub professional lineup of camera.
Well, if you are interested in a 17-55 2.8 on crop, what you really want is a lens to get blurry backgrounds and decent low light performance, right? An equivalent lens on FF will do that for you. And you are fine with paying the money and weight associated with that. So what is the point of using such a lens on the M system, that is explicitly about small, lightweight and affordable lenses? Why pollute a clean system with compromised options?
It makes perfect sense to me to separate the shrinking market into the size and weight enthusiasts and the picture quality and ergonomics enthusiasts. There may be an overlap there, but as I said: the market is shrinking. Only the users who are numerous enough will get what they want without paying more than they might like.
These two posts show a boundless lack of understanding...
Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:You seem to know better than the actual user what he/she wants... No, I am not fine with paying extra money and extra weight for a FF solution, when APS-C is fine. I like the smallness of lighter weight of Rebel bodies coupled with the decent trio of EF-S kit lenses.
Don't forget why it is shrinking: many people simply aren't willing to carry or pay as much as they used to. In that environment, having a system that prioritizes size above all else, for those who want to go further than smartphone quality while keeping size and weight reasonable, makes a lot of sense to me. And a system for the enthusiats that chase quality and are ready to compromise on size, weight and cost.It seems to make perfect sense to focus on one mount, which uses less resources, in a shrinking market.
This one always gets me. Lens based stabilization is also superior for the edges of WIDE ANGLE. When shooting wide angle, any movement of the lens causes the image projection at the edge of the frame to shift a much greater distance than the projection of image at the center of the frame. You can't compensate for shifting perspective at the edges in the same way as in the center by shifting the frame. If you keep the center stabilized you allow a perspective distortion blur to occur and create softness at the edges.
Would I still be happy to have IBIS? Sure. Will I gladly keep the 11-22 IS? Absolutely. Give me both. But if edge to edge sharpness is your need better grab a tripod if you can't get the shutterspeed you need.
You are welcome to your opinion.
You are the one putting the moral statement on this. I don't look down on him. I am describing him. There is a difference. I didn't make a value judgement, that was you. I also didn't say I was a better photographer, only that I understood the equipment better.
That said, yes I am also a better photographer.
Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?
That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.Yet it seems to me you're saying that by not considering the vast majority of camera buyers, who buy the best selling types of cameras such as the EOS M series and a couple of lenses and don't go out of their way to find *excuses* to take photographs, to be "enthusiasts" I'm pronouncing them to be inferior? Do you ever look in the mirror?
Actually, if you look at the Canon EOS SL cameras, e.g. the Rebel SL1 with 407 g, versus the M50 with 387 g, you can see it's possible to make a rather compact camera with a mount (EF/EF-S) that has the SAME diameter as the RF mount. Now you take out the mirror box etc., and only leave the RF mount, and you can make a lightweight rather compact APS-C RF mirrorless camera. And because it;'s mirrorless, you can now make all the EF-M lenses as RF APS-C lenses. They will be a bit heavier, due to larger mount diameter. So, it should be possible to make an APS-C RF mount system, that comes rather close to the EOS-M system.Sure! Give me a RF mount camera, roughly the same size/weight as the M50 and a selection of lenses in the $299-499 price points and equivalent quality level and I'm there!
Otherwise you aren't addressing the needs the M mount meets and I'd end up on another system that was. Today's RF's are too big, heavy and expensive to replace the M mount, and based on sales Canon has already found a huge market for that price/size/weight/quality level.
Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges.Well, I worded it poorly. I meant 'once one is willing to deal with the price and weight of a 17-55mm 2.8 crop lens, one may as well consider FF'. To elaborate:
At Amazon Germany, I can pay 1950 € for an RP with the 24-105 mm 4.0 L IS. Or buy them separately at 1265 + 1065 = 2330 €.
I can also get a 90D for 1265 as well, and the Canon EF-S 17-55 mm 2.8 for 675 € (1940 € total) or Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 for 460 € (1525 € total).
Total weight of the RP combo is 480 g + 700 g = 1180 g
For the Crop DSLR:
700 g + 645 g = 1345 g (With Canon lens)
700 g + 570 g =1270 g (With Tamron lens)
They are all roughly the same length (if you account for the flange distance, the EF-S 17-55 2.8 is the longest one).
It is not a complete apple's to apples comparison, of course. The 24-105 mm is a straight upgrade over the other options, but the RP and 90D are build for very different purposes.
But the point I was trying to make is this: If you want a 2.8 Zoom on crop, not just because you do, but because you want to get the associated results (Low light performance, background blur), there's nothing really favoring APS-C. You'll get those results and more going for an FF option, while paying a similar price for the total system and carrying less weight.
Sure, this matters not at all, if you don't look at the whole system. But Canon has to look into the future, where buying a new body and lens becomes more likely for most users.
Don't forget why it is shrinking: many people simply aren't willing to carry or pay as much as they used to. In that environment, having a system that prioritizes size above all else, for those who want to go further than smartphone quality while keeping size and weight reasonable, makes a lot of sense to me. And a system for the enthusiats that chase quality and are ready to compromise on size, weight and cost.
Well, that's exactly the point: The RP is only 30 g heavier than the 200D. That's so close, it's almost negligible.Yes, if you go for a higher tier APS-C body and higher end EF-S lens, then of course you approach FF price/weight ranges.
But that's the point of the APS-C line. You can get lighter and cheaper.
Since you compare a lowest priced FF system (the RP) with a standard kit zoom, you should do the same comparison at APS-C level,
so, take a Rebel and the 18-55 lens, (similar to the EOS-M kit lenses) and calculate price and weight. Price will be 560 Euro for the 250d at Amazon.de. And the weight is ~ 750g, almost half of the FF system.
I can't follow you here. You suggest a crop RF mount with crop only RF lenses? I don't think it will happen.The 250D has a mirror box, but a mount with the same diameter as RF. Take away the mirror box, and you can make an APS-C RF body that can be very lightweight, that can use EF-M / EF-S style compact lightweight APS-C lenses.
EF-M only has small and inexpensive lenses. It is an ideal, clean ecosystem for the people who are just enthusiastic enough to carry a little gear and spent a little time researching what lenses they should buy. As you go to more enthusiastic customers, EF-M certainly doesn't cut it as a main system. But MFT, Fuji and EF-S come with their own restrictions. What suits you best depends on a lot of variables. But in the end, you and me don't matter, the market as a whole does. From my perspective it looks like Canon believes having EF-M (APS-C) for the low end and RF (FF) for the rest is the way to go, to capture enough casual users and photo enthusiasts. RF Yan offer decently inexpensive and very light lenses as well, and body costs will come down eventually. Sure, an EF-S style system could be even lighter and less expensive, but at that point you're compromising in quality anyway, so why not go all the way to EF-M? It may just be that in the long term, there is not enough market for the type of camera and lenses in the middle of the inexpensive, light and compact - expensive, heavy, high performance spectrum.[/QUOTE]And for enthusiasts, the EOS-M system is limited. I'd rather go with another system like Fuji or MFT then. Now, the EOS-M crowd can still be kept happy with EF/EF-S lenes and adapters if EF-M doesn't cover it, but eventually that is going to disappear.
That's not what I actually said, it's just another straw man for you to knock down.