There is a speed booster from Pentax MF to RFWell, not everyone has a medium format camera. So they have to take some skinnier field of view and do something with it.
Upvote
0
There is a speed booster from Pentax MF to RFWell, not everyone has a medium format camera. So they have to take some skinnier field of view and do something with it.
You left out the price of the speed booster which only adds to the point you are making.Canon 10-18 $300
Canon 16-35 F4 $1100
If on a budget Aps-C lenses do make a lot of sense to me personally..
It depends.But as long as they don't make thicker lenses, certain designs are not feasible and therefore the EF-M lens line up looks pretty much complete to. Me.
Canon sells far more lenses than they sell cameras.Third party companies like Sigma often enter niches that they think won't be served by OEMs. Sigma producing those lenses is hardly proof that it makes sense for Canon.
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.You left out the price of the speed booster which only adds to the point you are making.
HiHi Alkar
I've had the bottom three lenses and you aren't comparing like with like.
...
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 Sigma doing well is bad news. It shows how little interest Canon has. Good Sigma sales should have encouraged Canon to release OEM products. They didn't.
So would I, but my M5 now feels too small. The RP is about the same weight but larger and feels better.The Canon EOS M5 was my favorite camera to come out in years. I would hate to see Canon kill off the EOS M lineup.
Hi
yes, that is (almost) correct. I wrote something about my comparison a few posts later...
All the best in the new year!
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.How would that work withought an adapter? I hope they could make an adapter that moves the smaller lenses 2mm into the mount, but I honestly don't know if they can.
Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”.
Both sources were also adamant that there will not be RF-S lenses for APS-C EOS R cameras, but that future lens design will “fill the void of no dedicated APS-C lenses”.
Same people that originally said there would never be an RF APS-C camera?
If they bring the APS-C bodies some third party will bring the lenses. If Canon see's they are leaving money on the table they will start creating lenses. As for me I already have the glass I just need the bodies so this is good news for me, but I do feel for those who bought into the M system as I went through the same thing when Canon first announced they were killing DSLR APS-C and APS-C owners could go pound sand because there would never be an APS-C RF mirrorless.
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.sorry, but it was more or less fact against the article, and not pointed at you.
there's no "theorycrafting" here. The concept won't work and I even gave a very credible example of why.
Since I've also found most of the patent applications lately, i haven't seen any lens outside of the 17-70mm that would even suggest a dual use. And even then, the lenses are large, and thus, expensive. And certainly would be DOA against the competition who would have optimized APS-C lenses for their APS-C cameras. (the 17-70mm is nearly 6 inches long - how's that gong to do against a Nikon Z 16-55mm APS-C kit lens.. hmmm?)
Also every rumor the last year on RF APS-C has been emphatic on stating no RF-S lenses. We know the roadmap the next year, there's no RF-S lenses.
CR has been predicting EOS-M's demise for at least as long as I can remember and so have other sites.
that would be 40mm at the wide end.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.
The M50 is still the best selling mirrorless camera on Amazon, will they really kill this cash cow? If they will go for it they have to release a 600-700$ RF camera, or this slice of the market will go to the competition
Ok, I am not at home in the Fuji system, so for my comparison I used what my friends have for Fuji cameras. I am also not familiar with the distinction to XC series. I only see what my friends use and what I have for M System (I have 22 f/2, 32mm f/1.4, and others too). The picture results from my plastic fantastic are definitely comparable with those from Fuji with premium optics.
Although, as I have already written before, I use M almost only for travel
Sure.
Interchangeable mounts are common for cinema cameras.
They are pretty much unheard of on mirrorless cameras.
My guess is that is for ergonomic reasons.
" Otherwise, the APS-C R mount may be DOA. People will go for the RP instead, except the birders. "
... or will change the system, which some of my friends have done.
They spent thousands on competitive hardware. Thousands that could land on Canon's account.