It looks like 2021 will be the last year for the EOS M lineup [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
It depends.
Technology might improve enough for Canon to make better EF-M lenses but they are also expected to be cheap.
Upvote
0
Canon sells far more lenses than they sell cameras.
If Sigma were to sell a lot of lenses then Canon would at least consider it.
On the other hand, more competition might discourage Canon from developing new lens models.
Upvote
0
The point for me staying with Aps-C is cheaper overall setup. Especially because the FF lenses make the transition so expensive (to replace my current 3 lenses). If I had the 16-35 F4 I wouldn't use a speedbooster and just buy a R6. However as my main sharing platform is socal media and I'm a hobbyist the whole FF seems overkill.
Beside APS C being cheaper I don't need the FF benefits. It can actually backfire me I think. As I don't need smaller dof than my current aps c f1.8 and 2.8 glass. I shoot a lot of aquarium stuff where it can be annoying to add more light. I assume with full frame to compensate for the DOF that I usually have with Aps-C. I will lose more rather than gain. Sure FF has less noise in higher iso, but I still think APS C has an advantage if you can't add more light (with more DOF? Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I really hope Canon is going to launch an aps c body with specs like the r6. Sooner the better I want to upgrade! Preferable with the RF mount as I have a lot more trust in that. Hopefully third party will also jump in to make aps c lenses in the future.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hi
yes, that is (almost) correct. I wrote something about my comparison a few posts later...
All the best in the new year!
Upvote
0
It doesn't work that way. Sigma has the ability to leverage a line across multiple mounts, so they have an inherent volume advantage over camera brands. Sigma can make one lens for Sony, Canon and M43 but each of those brands are restricted to their systems.
If anything this 1st party body + 3rd party lens relationship is the only way EF-M will continue to get lens development, which is fine by me. Sigma makes great glass.
Upvote
0
So would I, but my M5 now feels too small. The RP is about the same weight but larger and feels better.
Upvote
0
I believe this would require the use of an adapter with glass in it, to correct for the longer back focus distance. That, or it may be possible that some or most of the lenses have enough play in their back focus distance that they could still reach infinity focus with only 2mm difference between the mounts. Many AF lenses can go 'past' infinity focus to help the AF system hunt at greater distances. But either way some kind of adapter is necessary.
-Brian
Upvote
0
Most people who are upset with this news, myself included, is because of the assertion that a small, light and relatively cost effective system is being abandoned. I find that anyone who claims the system is dead and or makes the statement that it's not that big a deal, very shortsighted and close-minded. Besides the sales figures, the sheer amount of lamenting at the possible end of the EF-M line on this thread and many others rumoring its demise is evidence that it's a popular system.
I try to give Canon the benefit of the doubt, maybe they can provide a 'new and improved' system to replace what it's current base of EF-M users use? But that's not to say I'm not skeptical.
The one glimmer of hope is in this portion of the rumor:
What does that mean? Well consider the void they would have to fill.
If I'm expecting a pure RF mount system to fill the void of an EF-M mount system:
Now, I realize the benefits of a single united mount. It means we leverage the powerful new RF mount. The RF data pipeline is super fast enabling superior autofocus ability, it incorporates animal AF, and harmonious integration of lens and sensor stabilization. Control ring use. It means you can mount full frame RF lenses on it. Anyone who wants that reach and pixel density of a 7D can now do it on the RF system without breaking the bank. So I get why they might want to do this. However, as much as those are nice to have, I do not think it would be worth it to sacrifice the portability of the EF-M. I've experienced a future of a tiny crop body with full frame lenses. If you've used an M body and adapted EF lenses, you know what I'm talking about. It's not the same. That portability of EF-M lenses is gone. The lens body balance is out of whack. Every time I put an EF lens on my M50, I'm like, that's cool and all, but I quickly revert to putting EF-M lenses on it.
Will wait to see how Canon plans to address this, but if they choose the compromise to just make everything bigger to cater to the full frame bodies, I don't agree with it.
I try to give Canon the benefit of the doubt, maybe they can provide a 'new and improved' system to replace what it's current base of EF-M users use? But that's not to say I'm not skeptical.
The one glimmer of hope is in this portion of the rumor:
What does that mean? Well consider the void they would have to fill.
If I'm expecting a pure RF mount system to fill the void of an EF-M mount system:
- It would need a smaller and lighter body. This I see no problem of them doing. The RP is pretty small and there's room for shrinking it even more.
- It would need to be more cost effective. The most expensive EF-M lens tops out at about $500. I see no issue with this either. Canon has already provided relatively cost effective primes on the RF mount and historically on the EF mount, so they likely can manage the cost.
- The one thing that seems glaring and the reason for the skepticism is the size and weight of the lenses. In particular, it's the diameter of the lens. An EF-M lens is fixed at a remarkable 2.4" diameter. Not a single EF lens, EF-S lens or RF lens can come close to this. They've optimized the lens design to fit right over that crop sensor. The skepticism comes from pure physics. By electing to create lenses that will cover this void of EF-M users on a full frame system that means Canon is either over-designing lenses that won't leverage the entire image circle of a lens on a crop sensor body, or they are under-designing lenses that won't leverage the full sensor on a FF body.
Now, I realize the benefits of a single united mount. It means we leverage the powerful new RF mount. The RF data pipeline is super fast enabling superior autofocus ability, it incorporates animal AF, and harmonious integration of lens and sensor stabilization. Control ring use. It means you can mount full frame RF lenses on it. Anyone who wants that reach and pixel density of a 7D can now do it on the RF system without breaking the bank. So I get why they might want to do this. However, as much as those are nice to have, I do not think it would be worth it to sacrifice the portability of the EF-M. I've experienced a future of a tiny crop body with full frame lenses. If you've used an M body and adapted EF lenses, you know what I'm talking about. It's not the same. That portability of EF-M lenses is gone. The lens body balance is out of whack. Every time I put an EF lens on my M50, I'm like, that's cool and all, but I quickly revert to putting EF-M lenses on it.
Will wait to see how Canon plans to address this, but if they choose the compromise to just make everything bigger to cater to the full frame bodies, I don't agree with it.
Upvote
0
I'll be provocative and say that the 24-240mm lens was the first of these gap filling lenses. It doesn't quite fill a FF sensor at 24mm (look at all the lens correction it applies to cure the vignetting). It is small and light, remarkably so for such a zoom range. But it does work on a FF camera.
There were a bunch of patents for lenses across all focal ranges that seemed the same - not quite a full frame image circle, but with smaller lengths and widths. Those will be your stable of APSc-like size and weight lenses, which still can be used on any RF FF camera.
This is separate from the conversation of M size lens replacements. If M is truly gone, we won't get close to that size again on the RF system - at least in terms of lenses.
_Brian
Upvote
0
I think it is working right now with the 24-240. That lens can't cover a FF sensor at 24mm, and relies on the capability in the new bodies to apply a lot of lens correction. Expand that concept to an 18-55 or whatever else you want - easily cover an APSc, still usable on FF, but smaller and lighter than a truly dedicated FF lens. It may not be as small or as cheap as a dedicated APSc line, but will 'fill the void' while keeping canon in a single mount. There were a bunch of patents that showed lenses that could fit this bill. We'll just have to see what comes. As to cost, Canon has gone up the price scale on everything and I think these lenses will be no exception.
Upvote
0
that would be 40mm at the wide end.
stretching like that isn't done because it's a combo lens it's meant to save costs and weight and that happens frequently on lenes such as ones in compact cameras, etc.
it would be a ludicrous "kit lens" there's no patent for a full frame lens that is the same size and weight of an APS-C lens.
The only lens I could myself dream up is similar to your comment, but it's never been created or invented, it would have to be around a 15-105mm, where if you put it on an ASP-C body you can zoom down to 15mm. If you put it on a full frame R body, you are blocked from zooming past 24mm. that hasn't been patented. Even then you end up having a kit lens about the size of the 24-105mm which is not small when it has to go head to head against a Sony A6000 and it's 16-50mm.
canon is competing with "REAL" APS-C ecosystems, so using full frame lenses is idiotic because they will be compared to one of the main elements to why people purchase APS-C cameras - size and weight and cost.
Upvote
0
Maybe this slice of the market is shrinking so fast that it's not viable at all to support it. IF so, the competition will soon follow Canon's lead.
That's assuming this rumor turns out to be a worldwide end to the M-series, not an end to selling the M-series in North America or N.A. plus Western Europe.
Upvote
0
Hi Allkar.
Just a follow up. Whilst the X-C kit zoom is unique (and on a par with the M equivalent) to the C range and pretty good for what it is, other C models like the 23 and 35 are just the same as X-F line but in lighter bodies, no aperture ring and plastic mounts. I used to have the 22 and 32 on M mount. Lovely lenses. no better than X Mount glass and I'd suggest those two punch well above their weight compared to EF-S and some EF glass.
I'm not knocking the m range, I've achieved very good results with them. I'm not sure that they have much longevity if the end of the M series is near. My biggest beef with my old M50 was the poor low light performance. Something which Fuji does improve on. I know, I ran a load of test when I was swapping.
Anyway for better or worse I've changed and I hope it all works out for Canon APS-C fans. I say that without any feelings of optimism.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
