Opinion: Canon is causing its own problems with the RF mount

[PerKr]

exactly! agree 100%



no technical reason whatsoever. Any size sensor smaller than and up to 36x24mm could be served by RF mount. Downside would be crop camera bodies and crop lenses that are not as compact as they could be with a smaller mount [like EF-M].

Throughout the DSLR era Canon has used to mount variants to optimize FF and APS-C systems in terms of optical performance and size/weight/price. With RF mount it is clear they have decided to continue a 2-mount approach also for the mirrorfree future.

Sony decided to go 1 mount only and use APS-C E mount also for FF sensor. They and their customers have to live with the consequences of that decision. Amongst other unwanted effects like more complex, heavy and expensive lens deigns I do not think we'll ever see lenses like a Sony FE 85/1.2 or a 28-70/2.0. And even less so a 58/0.95 [although I personally doubt the necessity of such a lens].

In line with their DSLR history [1 mount, F-mount with FX and DX lenses] Nikon seems set to also go with 1 mount ("Z") for mirrorfree as well, but opposed to Sony they would use the large FF-optimized Z-mount also for APS-C cameras. Downside to that approach is that APS-C camera bodies are not possible in a very compact format, due to the physically large mount opening.

There is a clear difference between the EF + EF-S strategy and the EF-M + RF strategy idea proposed by many here though. EF and EF-S mount is exactly the same, the difference is in the optics which for EF-S protrude closer to the sensor. EF-M and RF mounts are different by design and seemingly incompatible with eachother. If the RF mount is going to be canon's main mount, and it seems like it judging by the lenses released, keeping EF-M makes as much sense as keeping the FD mount after EF was introduced.

Historically, there have been few examples of manufacturers supporting more than one mount in the long term. We have Leica M and Leica R but Leica have always been a premium brand which puts it in a very different position relative to Canon. They still discontinued the R mount. We have Fuji, Pentax and Hasselblads various medium format mounts, but again medium format is a premium niche. And Hasselblad still slowly moved away from older mounts.

Z-mount and RF mount will allow for APS-C bodies that are compact enough, as opposed to "very compact". Sure, the smaller EF-M mount and APS-C sensor allows for a slightly smaller total package but then m43 allows for even smaller and compacts can be smaller still.

 

[fullstop]

. EF and EF-S mount is exactly the same, the difference is in the optics which for EF-S protrude closer to the sensor. EF-M and RF mounts are different by design

yes. As mandated by laws of optics.

and seemingly incompatible with each other.

Remains to be seen. A 2mm adapter for RF-lenses on EF-M mount may be possible.
And using crop lenses like EF-M on FF-sensors like RF is of little practical interest. People able to buy EOS R FF cameras will also be able to either at least buy 24-105 kit with it ... or EF lenses either new or for little money second hand as soon as many early RF adopters dump them. I expect a number of EF 24-70/2.8 II lenses to hit ebay once RF 28-70/2.0 becomes available. ;-)

keeping EF-M makes as much sense as keeping the FD mount after EF was introduced.

Not comparable. EF-M and EOS-M will stay around for many years to come. And FD lenses may well see a second life on EOS R cameras.

Z-mount and RF mount will allow for APS-C bodies that are compact enough, as opposed to "very compact". Sure, the smaller EF-M mount and APS-C sensor allows for a slightly smaller total package

well, Canon [and myself ] appreciate the option to build VERY COMPACT EOS M APS-C cameras and EF-M lenses.

 

[LDS]

If sales are good, Canon could keep the M line for those looking for compact, light, small cameras and lenses. It doesn't also need an extensive lens lineup - a few zoom covering from 11 to 200-250mm and a few faster primes (for street photographers or the like) will be enough. It could be 10-12 lenses at most. With little reasons to mount them on a R APS-C body, if it ever arrives.

It is true Nikon 1 series was a failure, still Canon could keep the M line as an alternative to some m43 cameras and even some Fuji APS-C compact models.

Compatibility across lens lines could be good, but it could also lead to bad compromises for future developments. Nikon in an attempt to keep lens compatibility for far too long lost to Canon and its "disruptive" EF line.

 

[Kit.]

But unlike the drama queen article author I don't see why such a 2mm adapter should not be technically possible.

Take an EF lens. Take a ruler. Remove the back cap from the lens. Measure how deep the bayonet tabs protrude into the body from the flange.

Whether Canon or will (ever) bring one out or not remains to be seen. I definitely expect it from third parties - eventually.

Yeah, because if Canon cannot warp space, third parties definitely can.

 

[traveller]

Typical forum discussion. People getting their panties all in a twist before the cameras/lenses are even released.

Quite, but a discussion that you just couldn’t resist joining.... all good fun!

I really don't see the problem. EF lenses remain the foundation of Canon's lens system. That's going to be the case for at least the next decade and probably longer. Canon makes three specialized mounts, one for crop DLSRs, one for crop mirrorless and, now, one for full-frame mirrorless. Those lenses are matched to the formats. I imagine that Canon's market research shows that this won't be a problem for most users.

I doubt that Canon plans to be releasing new EF mount lenses in ten years time. In under four years, Sony managed to move from the first generation A7 (and A7r) with their flakey handling and operational characteristics, to the third gen A9 that is already gaining traction with certain groups of professionals (in particular, those for whom the silent shutter and/or 20fps is critical).

I suspect that Canon will have their pro-level EOS R body released ready for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, probably alongside a 1DX Mark 3. L-series lenses (especially the “big whites”) not released by then will almost certainly not have another EF mount version. Somewhere at HQ, I imagine that Canon has plan to migrate EF mount users to mirrorless that’s supported by charts of data predicting which groups they expect to switch with each new EOS R model they release.

 

[Kit.]

I suspect that Canon will have their pro-level EOS R body released ready for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, probably alongside a 1DX Mark 3. L-series lenses (especially the “big whites”) not released by then will almost certainly not have another EF mount version. Somewhere at HQ, I imagine that Canon has plan to migrate EF mount users to mirrorless that’s supported by charts of data predicting which groups they expect to switch with each new EOS R model they release.

As long as Canon sells APS-C ILCs, it would be interested in making lenses (especially telephoto lenses) compatible with both its APS-C and its FF cameras. Which at the moment means EF.

 

[PerKr]

As long as Canon sells APS-C ILCs, it would be interested in making lenses (especially telephoto lenses) compatible with both its APS-C and its FF cameras. Which at the moment means EF.

well, yes, they will keep making them as long as they sell in good numbers. They will just stop developing new lenses. Pretty much the same situation as with Sony and their E-mount vs A-mount. They're still making them, they just won't spend time developing and marketing them. And once RF mount is where EF is today, there will be little reason for any alternative mounts.

yes. As mandated by laws of optics.

As I recall it, Canon's design decision for EF-S was based on the idea that the lenses could be made smaller. Not sure if that really worked out. Meanwhile, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina produced EF-mount APS-C lenses that didn't have that protrusion and could be used on FF and APS-H models albeit with heavy vignetting.

 

[mensaf]

Truthfully, I don't think it'd matter all that much. I have the 85mm f1.4 IS and it's comically large when mounted to the otherwise ultra compact M50. Compared to the EF-M lenses, it's clunky and throws the balance of the camera way off. I'd rather keep it as a b-cam or as an ultra light on the go camera than continue to mount oversized lenses to it. It isn't as bad when I have it caged, but I do a lot of freehand shooting with video and you definitely pick up on the lack of balance with that type of setup. I'd imagine issues with photography to be the same, if not moreso.

 

[fullstop]

Take an EF lens. Take a ruler. Remove the back cap from the lens. Measure how deep the bayonet tabs protrude into the body from the flange.
Yeah, because if Canon cannot warp space, third parties definitely can.

This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount. Even including manual aperture control (=for Nikon lenses without aperture ring). Notice how thick that flange is? 0.5mm could still be shaved off, i guess.

 

[Kit.]

This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount.

Do you realize the difference between a lens protruding into a wider camera mount and a lens trying to protrude into a narrower camera mount?

 

[stefang]

No. It is way too early. But unlike the drama queen article author I don't see why such a 2mm adapter should not be technically possible. Whether Canon or will (ever) bring one out or not remains to be seen. I definitely expect it from third parties - eventually.

Let's not forget that the RF mount is much wider than the EF-M mount and that part of the RF bayonet sits inside the RF mount. So if the RF bayonet does not fit inside the EF-M mount (which it probably doesn't) , it may very well be that even without an adapter, it's not possible to position an RF lens close enough to a EF-M mount.

 

[photonius]

We should also consider that Canon may believe the 'problems' are minor and/or irrelevant.

Anecdotally, the use of EF lenses on APS-C bodies prior to a FF upgrade certainly occurs. There are examples on this forum, myself included. But is that typical/common? I know I'm far from typical – I had the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the 85/1.2L II, the 100-400L, and the 24-105/4L IS with the 7D, prior to getting the 5DII.

I wonder how many Canon APS-C owners upgrade to FF, how many have EF lenses when they do, and how many of those were lower IQ lenses that were replaced L lenses after the upgrade. But...whereas I can only wonder, Canon has the data. In light of those data, there maybe no real problem from their perspective.

They key here is one still can have an APS-C system, and be fine with it, but supplement it with EF lenses that do not exist as EF-S. Unless a 2mm adapter comes, this will not be possible with RF lenses. The question then becomes, how much will Canon expand their EF-M lens repertoire (in a way they would have to duplicate their RF line-up). If it stay as is, it's not satisfactory for me, but I have no inclination to go FF because of higher costs, size and weight.

 

[fullstop]

Do you realize the difference between a lens protruding into a wider camera mount and a lens trying to protrude into a narrower camera mount?

aha! yes! Now I got you.
Overlooked the difference in diameter, just focused on FFD delta. 54mm throat-width lens onto a 47mm inner-width mount with only 2mm FFD delta is ... hmmmpf ...

So, I stand corrected: RF to EF-M adapter "not likely". ;-)

 

[zim]

Hmmm. Crop Mirrorless Canon = M mount. FF Mirroless Canon = RF mount. My guess is that Canon understands that (forum dwellers not withsatnding) very few folks will want RF lenses for their M series cameras and vice versa. Considering the huge size difference in both cameras and lenes, they regard these two mirrorless systems as completely separate. The so-called "upgrade path from crop to FF" might include so few people as to be a non factor. I am interested in the new RF camera and also own the M. I would have absolutely no interest in buying an RF lens for my M5 due to size and weight.

What path would you recommend a reach limited 7D user wanting @10fps to go down or someone who has EF APSC and FF and has one common set of EF L glass?

Not trolling honest, just that's where I am and I can get my head round all these mounts and adapters and how to go forward with this. As I said in a previous post I now have no interest in M5 either.

Maybe Canon did feel under pressure to release some news and we are all working off half a story here. The more I think about it the more it seems right that the rumoured other mirror-less could actually be a fast 24Mp sports replacement with RF mount sitting at a 7D level but then that's my personal needs and wishes clouding those thoughts!

 

[pcaouolte]

Have we seen pictures of the back of the R lenses? Is it possible that the strange silver ring at the back of the lens is part of some clever mechanism to resize the R mount to fit an M camera without an adapter?

 

[JohanCruyff]

Have we seen pictures of the back of the R lenses? Is it possible that the strange silver ring at the back of the lens is part of some clever mechanism to resize the R mount to fit an M camera without an adapter?

It could be possible, but the (leaked) specification of the EOS R take into consideration the EF-S and the EF lenses compatibility, and exclude the EF-M lenses.

 

[brianboru]

Nikon may have 'officially' discontinued the 1 series in July, but the last camera in the series came out in 2015.

As for the EOS M being 'arguably more successful', the Nikon one was a commercial flop, the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally. To claim the EOS M is 'arguably more successful' is disingenuous at best, but arguably just an asinine statement.

I find this amazing to contemplate in retrospect. I bought the original M when it went on the $300-with your choice of lens fire-sale back in July 2013. (The first M had one glaring problem - glacial focusing speed.) I remember reading lots of angst over Canons "failure" at the time and it did feel like Canon was abandoning the platform given how aggressive they were in clearing the shelves. About the same time, the Nikon -1 was also getting a lot of bad press too, but it was fairly easy to see that it had some fundamental platform problems of being sensor crippled for the size of package and price they wanted.

I'm glad Canon didn't abandon the M and am having fun with my new M50, I still have and use that original M too.

So my bets for 5 years from now are:

• R/RF - will get most of the love. I expect APS-C bodies and entry kit showing up.
• The M remains and is developed for the foreseeable future One new body and lens a year.
  (It's competing against micro-4/3rds in a market trying to maximize image quality in the smallest package possible.)
• EF remains with a sports and wildlife focus - refreshes of lenses and bodies slow. (I would still bet on a 7D3.)
• EF-S and Rebel wither once the entry RF bodies and lens arrive. (This might be quicker than five years - I would love to know how many of the M sales were people picking between it and a Rebel as their first ILC.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find this amazing to contemplate in retrospect. I bought the original M when it went on the $300-with your choice of lens fire-sale back in July 2013. (The first M had one glaring problem - glacial focusing speed.) I remember reading lots of angst over Canons "failure" at the time and it did feel like Canon was abandoning the platform given how aggressive they were in clearing the shelves.

I don't find it amazing at all, nor even surprising if you consider the global view point instead of a North America-centric perspective. At the time of the original EOS M, MILCs were not popular outside of Asia, and Japan was the largest global market for them. In Japan, the original EOS M was not discounted, but instead rapidly rose to become the #2 best selling mirrorless, behind only a two generation-old, deeply discounted Sony NEX.

In North America, they did abandon the platform for a while. The M2 was never sold here, and the M11-22 was not available in the US for a couple of years after its launch (I ordered mine from a Canadian online retailer).

 

[jeffa4444]

Canon will watch sales of both cameras and lenses and at some future point will decide what needs to be cut. It may well be a transition that lasts a few years possibly to the RF (full frame) and M (APS-C) with EF legacy lenses working with RF and EF-S legacy lenses working with M and the disappearance of DSLRs in both EF & EF-S. However if DSLRs continue to have strong sales they may chose to support four lens series.

 

[traveller]

This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount. Even including manual aperture control (=for Nikon lenses without aperture ring). Notice how thick that flange is? 0.5mm could still be shaved off, i guess.

I've read the posts on this thread, got out all my m42 equipment and adapters and had a long hard think... Despite my earlier statement of confidence that Canon had a solution to this issue (page 2 of this thread), I've come to the realisation that those who claim an RF to M adapter is not physically possible are totally correct. To get your head around why, don't look at the adapter, pick up the body with the smaller throat diameter (like my Pentax Spotmatic F) and an EF mount lens, then imagine how (theoretically assuming the EF lens actually had a 2mm longer flange focal distance than my Spotmatic) you would attach the EF mount lens to this body... You soon realise that the limiting dimension is the distance between the back of the EF mount lens' bayonet lug and the mount itself (i.e. the chrome bit). For an EF mount lens this is about 5mm, plus you'd need an extra 1-2mm of metal to form the 'face' of the adapter (even if you had some kind of external breech-lock type connector for the EF mount side). RF mount lenses may have a thinner mount than EF, but from the photos online I doubt it will be 2mm, as this would mean the bayonet would be incredibly thin and weak. It therefore seems that it is physically impossible to have a traditional external mount adapter that would allow you to connect RF mount lenses to EF-M mount bodies.

Pentax had an m42 to K mount conversion service for years and Sigma currently offer this service (for $100 per lens, I believe) for their 'Art" series, but these are service centre jobs. We cannot completely rule out that Canon doesn't have some kind of cunning system that might allow you to change the actual mount at home, but I am struggling to match this possibility with the company that we all know (and often despise!) so well.