If the canon is to release an APS-C rf body, could the m line still co-exist with the RF line? Let's say they end up releasing the m7 & m50 ii, along with 1-2 more lenses in 2021. (I'm using a canon m50 rn, planning to invest in more lenses but not sure if the canon is gonna kill the line... as mentioned in a rumour about a month ago)
Could EOS M & RF Co-exist?
- Thread starter rjthestarboy
- Start date
It is an interesting question. I don't yet see the advantage of an "RF-S" lens without really knowing the reason for an APS-C RF camera, when there is already EF-M for mirrorless APS-C in a variety of useful form factors.
And EF-M already has a short 18mm flange focal distance, whereas RF flange focal distance is 20mm.
So what would RF-S do? I suppose allow high speed lens communication and additional lens functions that aren't available with EF and its derivatives?
Having said that, to date I have skipped EF-M lenses altogether and opted to use the Mount Adapter EF-EOS M on my M6 Mark II.
One perspective is to go ahead and buy what you need to fulfill your hobby or business needs now. And if EF-M gets axed, you can always sell that gear and at least recoup some cost.
And EF-M already has a short 18mm flange focal distance, whereas RF flange focal distance is 20mm.
So what would RF-S do? I suppose allow high speed lens communication and additional lens functions that aren't available with EF and its derivatives?
Having said that, to date I have skipped EF-M lenses altogether and opted to use the Mount Adapter EF-EOS M on my M6 Mark II.
One perspective is to go ahead and buy what you need to fulfill your hobby or business needs now. And if EF-M gets axed, you can always sell that gear and at least recoup some cost.
Upvote
0
Canon can produce a R series camera just as small as a M but with a RF lens mount. It would be 2mm thicker. If they do that, all RF lenses should fit rather than a klutzy RF-S that only mounted to crop cameras. Once they produce such a camera, there would be no reason for a M. It would have no size advantages.
Canon would keep selling M bodies as long as there were buyers, but that might only be 2-3years. Lenses might keep selling a bit longer.
Since we are seeing new M bodies, it seems unlikely to go away soon, so a Crop R body might just be for high end buyers at first to see how it sells. The M is high profit.
Canon would keep selling M bodies as long as there were buyers, but that might only be 2-3years. Lenses might keep selling a bit longer.
Since we are seeing new M bodies, it seems unlikely to go away soon, so a Crop R body might just be for high end buyers at first to see how it sells. The M is high profit.
Upvote
0
If Canon didn't produce a klutzy RF-S line of lenses that covered a smaller image circle, then the R lenses would still be considerably larger than their EF-M counterparts and the size advantage of M would remain. Just sayin'.
Upvote
0
What I was referring to was the design that prevented EF-s use on FF bodies. Now that R users can adapt a EF-s to their R, it just makes sense to me that a future RF-S should not have a design limiting it to crop bodies only. For crop camera users who wanted to move to full frame, being able to use your existing lenses, even if they cropped the image makes sense, and make it simpler for a person to switch over. I switched to FF long ago, but then bought a SL-2 with a 15-85 EF-s and a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 (Mistake). When I got my R, I tried those lenses out of curiosity and they worked. I already had all the FF lenses I needed, so I never actually used those lenses except for the quick test. Some might use them while buying FF as they could afford them.
Since the Sigma 18-35 does not trigger the crop mode, you have to set it manually, I just left it to see what I got. If I wanted to keep my existing lenses while acquiring FF ones, it would be possible.
Here is one of the three sample shots I took with it.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Interesting how much of the fullframe sensor the ef-s actually covers!
Upvote
0
I think the subject was covered for lenses such as the EF-S 10-22mm hacked to mount on FF (with mirror lockup). AFAIK, unless a baffle is used, as in the EF 24-105mm f/4L mk 1, a lens will usually have a greater power of coverage for longer focal lengths and wider apertures. That means you might get as far as full frame coverage on the long end with wide aperture, thought the image quality at the edges will probably suffer.
Upvote
0
Seems to me the intersection of RF mount and crop sensor makes sense for a 7D-like camera, which is why I think Canon wouldn't make one.
The 7DmkII has a 20MP sensor. The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode, which produces 45MP / 1.6^2 = 17.5MP. So Canon could (does?) sell an RF camera with FF sensor to replace the 7D. Would save Canon on making wide RF lenses for crop.
On the other hand, if a super tele on a 90D w/ 32MP sensor gives better IQ than an R5, same super tele, and a tele converter (wouldn't surprise me if it does), I can see why some photographers would like 7DmkIII replacement with RF mount.
The 7DmkII has a 20MP sensor. The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode, which produces 45MP / 1.6^2 = 17.5MP. So Canon could (does?) sell an RF camera with FF sensor to replace the 7D. Would save Canon on making wide RF lenses for crop.
On the other hand, if a super tele on a 90D w/ 32MP sensor gives better IQ than an R5, same super tele, and a tele converter (wouldn't surprise me if it does), I can see why some photographers would like 7DmkIII replacement with RF mount.
Upvote
0
Same deal with my Tamron crop lenses...they don't trigger the crop mode in my R5.
I actually hope no one ever fixes it.
Upvote
0
The outside diameter of EF-M lenses is approximately the inside diameter of the RF mount. RF is 2 mm thicker. Those are the only real differences between EF-M and RF. Even a small RF mount camera would have to be a bit bigger, but enough that it really justifies having two mounts?
I've changed my mind a bit on this topic, but I do not think so.
Canon will figure out a way to have cameras and lenses at numerous price points, including some that are very low and entry level. Right now, that seems to be covered by EF and EF-m cameras. Moving forward, it will depend on how large of a market Canon thinks sub $800 cameras is going to be, but historically it is large, yet, it is also most likely to diminish due to cell phone cameras. There will be less expensive cameras. There will be gateway cameras. It makes sense that smaller crop sensors can provide lower price points and it makes that those cameras introduce the user to an ecosystem that they can grow in. That is RF-s and not EF-m.
So, could they co-exist, sure. But it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I really enjoy the M6 II. It is a much more legitimate camera than I was prepared for when I picked it up. But the silence of the new EF-m lenses when there is such a need is deafening.
I've changed my mind a bit on this topic, but I do not think so.
Canon will figure out a way to have cameras and lenses at numerous price points, including some that are very low and entry level. Right now, that seems to be covered by EF and EF-m cameras. Moving forward, it will depend on how large of a market Canon thinks sub $800 cameras is going to be, but historically it is large, yet, it is also most likely to diminish due to cell phone cameras. There will be less expensive cameras. There will be gateway cameras. It makes sense that smaller crop sensors can provide lower price points and it makes that those cameras introduce the user to an ecosystem that they can grow in. That is RF-s and not EF-m.
So, could they co-exist, sure. But it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I really enjoy the M6 II. It is a much more legitimate camera than I was prepared for when I picked it up. But the silence of the new EF-m lenses when there is such a need is deafening.
Upvote
0
When I first bought my M50 I regarded it as the "junior" camera next to my T6i. It took me about a year of sporadic photography to figure out it actually had more features and was in no way inferior to the T6i though I did tend to put physically smaller lenses on it (not EF-M lenses but smaller EF-S with an adapter--once I had that adapter I never touched the 15-45 again--I effectively had two cameras that would take the same lenses). The M6-II was and still is no lightweight with a good burst rate and sensor, and on my last road trip to Yellowstone was the camera I could (and did) grab when bison decided to take a walk on the road (alas with my windows up and glare, nothing usable came of either encounter).
Upvote
0
Maybe the point of an R7 is not:
1) Smaller
2) Cheaper
than FF RF cameras?
Maybe it's a high end APS-C body similar to the 7D Mark II with high durability and longevity for users who also have FF RF bodies and lenses?
The market for which the EOS M system is intended is not the same market for which the EOS R system is intended. They're two totally different types of cameras for two totally different types of buyers.
Upvote
0
Canon has made it pretty clear the entry level for EOS R will be FF.
If they make an APS-C RF mount camera it will not be a low end, entry level camera. It will be on the opposite end of the APS-C spectrum. It will be a fast handling, built like a tank camera similar to the 7D Mark II. It will be aimed at users who also shoot FF RF mount cameras and lenses and want a fast handling camera with a high density APS-C sensor for more "reach" for certain limited applications (without needing to buy another higher cost R5 or R5s).
Upvote
0
From what we have seen sor far, I absolutely do agree with this.
But they also didn't really follow through with this yet. At the moment, capable entry level DSLR can still be bought, with kit lenses, for prices like 550 € (250D, SL3), 690 € (800D, T7i) and ~950 € (850D, T8i and also 80D). Until they have a FF body that comes closer to those price points, there is still quite a barrier to RF entry. The RP with 24-105 4.0-7.1 STM (of course superior to the 18-55 3.5-5.6 crop kits) is 1300 €.
Of course it is just anecdotal, but I have witnessed two people buying their first ILC recently, ending up with a Nikon Z50 kit + one of the 1.8 primes, and a 90D kit + Tamron 35 mm 1.4 respectively. I feel like both are ambitious enough combinations that going FF would have been a consideration, if there was a sub 1000 € RF option with modernized features available.
The question then really becomes what has to be left out in order to hit those price points. In particular, how much of the R6 & R5 advances (sensor speed, IBIS, AF, viewfinder) can be offered at lower prices?
In particular, would sub 1k RF FF require recycling the 6D II sensor again, or can it be done with a modern one? Now that AF performance is heavily tied to the sensor, and the 6D II type DR and speed are really starting to show its age, I think it would create a weird conflict if you will need to chose between modern APS-C sensor and speed (90D, M6 II, potentially M5 II) and recycled FF with reduced speed (i.e. recycling the 6D II and 5D IV sensor again).
While such a tradeoff will be in place, I think it will be harder for Canon to convince the market that there is not point waiting for low end RF APS-C.
Upvote
0
I think there is a big gap between the RF and M lines, the gap of a capable APS-C camera. I don't know why Canon has not addressed this segment yet, but there is no mirrorless equivalent of the 90D or 7Dm2. An APS-C camera with good ergonomics and controls, weather sealing, decent evf and lpe6 battery. The m50 update was a joke and no ef-m lens is planned for the near future. I wouldn't feel confident buying the rumored m7 with such prospects.
I would really love to move to mirrorless but I'll have to stick with a 90d for now.
Canon should make up their minds if they're going to take the M line seriously or come up with an RF APS-C camera.
I would really love to move to mirrorless but I'll have to stick with a 90d for now.
Canon should make up their minds if they're going to take the M line seriously or come up with an RF APS-C camera.
Upvote
0
I used the m50 update as a sign of how seriously Canon is taking the M line. When the first m50 came out its specs were comparable to the 80D with a better processor, 4k and faster burst (it was only missing the weather sealing and a control ring). It was clear that Canon was putting a lot of effort on the M line - that effort now has moved to the RF FF cameras and left the serious APS-C shooters with few options.
Upvote
0
To me, the original M50 seems like a pilot for the R series hardware, firmware and user experience. It put digic 8 and eye-AF out there, delivering feedback for the R that was going to be launched a year later. That's enough time to fix the issues reported with the M50 autofocus in the R firmware.
For the M50II, I'm a bit disappointed that it's still using the digic 8 instead of the digic X, but the digic 8 already runs circles around that old 24MP sensor, so the digic X would've been overkill. It would've given us HEIF, though.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
