A higher end EOS M body is in the pipeline [CR1]

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
139
55
You sound like somebody who would refuse to use this lens on 7D II because it "isn't an EF-S lens".
That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.
 

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
139
55
Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.

This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.
I would say with mirrorless, a crop mode on FF cameras will be the way to go for high end crop, almost like having two cameras in one. Your anecdotal experience with Sony isn’t enough to counter the same lens mount advantage for both crop and FF, as it works really well for DSLR and crop lenses aren’t meant for FF DSLR’s anyway. If Canon do produce a 7D EOS-M, the lens mount will be an issue for higher end users.
 
Last edited:

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
284
72
I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
Someone with enough budget could get additional FF gear and keep the APS-C gear as second system (leigtweigt and travel).

I guess people with the upgrade path wish are a minority. And I think this is more or less an argument to declare Canon doomed if they do not deliver a APS-C -> FF upgrade path.;)

Frank
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
591
567
118
Williamsport, PA
Actually, having completely incompatible lenses is turning out to be a better idea than the Sony system where E lenses will work on FE bodies because you have confusion the other way, someone buys a lens, it works on their A7 camera, but all the photos are kinda low res and they wonder why.... Had to help three people with this EXACT problem. They weren't happy that they had paid for a lens (admittedly without researching very well) that *appeared* to work but only produced tiny image files.

This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.
We shall see.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,470
2,311
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
Someone with enough budget could get additional FF gear and keep the APS-C gear as second system (leigtweigt and travel).

I guess people with the upgrade path wish are a minority. And I think this is more or less an argument to declare Canon doomed if they do not deliver a APS-C -> FF upgrade path.;)

Frank
Only Canon really knows how many people who start with an APS-C camera "upgrade" to full frame. With the price of full frame having dropped significantly in recent years, the number may be fewer than it once was.

Your point is valid for wide angle lenses, but many APS-C users have always bought full frame telephoto lenses. In fact, there are very few telephoto lenses available that are APS-C only. So, people are used to being able to use their telephotos on both full frame and APS-C bodies. Before, the upgrade path was much simpler. You could buy an APS-C body and one good EF-S lens like the 15-85mm and then everything else could be EF. It's not so simple with mirrorless and it remains to be seen if this will be a problem for Canon or not. It appears that Canon doesn't think it will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Sibir Lupus

EOS M6 Mark II + EOS M10
Feb 4, 2015
89
26
36
I do not fully understand the wish for an upgrade path from APS-C to FF.
If someone started with APS-C he would most probably not buy a 24-105 with future use on FF body in mind as he will missing out focal length on the wide end during his APS-C time. And vice versa a APS-C user who like the look of a 22mm lens wouldn't like it if this 22mm lens can also be used on FF.
So with both of these cases in mind and surely much more examples possible , there is not (and was not with EF-s) really a upgrade path. One would have to buy new lenses anyway.
People on a budget will start out with APS-C and probably never upgrade to FF as long as they will stay budget limited or they do not feel to need FF ever.
Someone with enough budget could get additional FF gear and keep the APS-C gear as second system (leigtweigt and travel).

I guess people with the upgrade path wish are a minority. And I think this is more or less an argument to declare Canon doomed if they do not deliver a APS-C -> FF upgrade path.;)

Frank
True, the need for an upgrade path is not something everyone wants or needs when buying into a system. Many may stick with APS-C, or some may just jump right into FF when deciding on what fits their needs. But not having that upgrade path for Canon could be make or break for at least some people when deciding on what company's mirrorless system to buy into. Both Sony and Nikon have an APS-C to FF upgrade path for their mirrorless systems, so it would be wise for Canon to at least try to tie the EF-M and RF systems together in some way.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,742
1,083
That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.
You may call me "silly", but I have no immediate plans to buy RF lenses for my EOS R5 to be. So far, there are no RF lenses I am interested in.
 
Last edited:

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
799
136
Or maybe Canon could bring out a body with switchable mounts for EF, EF-M, and RF. Start with some form of universal mount that can accommodate adapters for all three. Would likely need to be an APS-C model, but who knows. I don't really expect to see something like this, particularly in a low end body, but you never know.

Just throwing it out there.... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
36
15
Johannesburg
This makes sense to me. Treat the M Mount line as the dedicated crop sensor line while supporting EF lenses. This move could remove the need for Canon to support the RF Mount on consumer grade cameras while providing the M Mount with a top end crop sensor model.

I never trusted the claims that had the M Mount dieing.
I've been saying this is exactly what Canon is doing.

The XXXD market don't buy many lenses, and when they do - its usually the nifty fifty (EF-M 32mm), wide angle (22mm) or a macro lens (EF-M 28mm). All that's missing is a portrait lens and ultra-wide and that's game for the non-sports APS-C market. Its only the camera nerds and bloggers who keep shouting "Canon needs to make an APS-C RF body" - and they think if they keep shouting loud enough Canon will ignore their R&D and cede to the people who make up 10% of their numbers.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
I've been saying this is exactly what Canon is doing.

The XXXD market don't buy many lenses, and when they do - its usually the nifty fifty (EF-M 32mm), wide angle (22mm) or a macro lens (EF-M 28mm). All that's missing is a portrait lens and ultra-wide and that's game for the non-sports APS-C market. Its only the camera nerds and bloggers who keep shouting "Canon needs to make an APS-C RF body" - and they think if they keep shouting loud enough Canon will ignore their R&D and cede to the people who make up 10% of their numbers.
I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.
 

sdz

EOS RP
Sep 13, 2016
241
146
Pittsburgh, PA
I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.
I have had no problems with my M-Mount adapter. Canon made it work.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
680
678
Hamburg, Germany
I can't see them moving the 7D line to the M series. The M series is such a special system. Unless it is only meant as a temporary replacement. Use your EF Tele on a larger APS-C mirrorless, until the RF system has the native lenses and bodies you want. The R5 almost matches the 7D II in terms of reach, and probably surpasses it in anything but build quality. That 32 MP sensor is intriguing, but if they scale that up to FF, what's left for EF-M to offer that RF won't?

From what I understand the 7D is really just a niche for the folks who liked to minimize the compromize on build quality and AF performance without paying 1D series-cash. Both qualities made it well suited for wildlife applications, together with the inherent crop of APS-C. But for that, you'd certainly use a huge lens. And that's just the opposite of what Canon seems to see in the M series. Mind you that the only Tele lens patent we saw was for a lens that was 360 mm f/7.1 on the long end. Not quite what a 7D guy would use, although it of course fits into Canon standard EF-M dimensions.

And would they really pollute their quirky system of lenses that all have the same outer diameter (which is also the outer mount diameter) with a proper Tele just for one niche type of customer? That could probably spend the money on a higher level RF body to use with their existing EF Tele?

It would be nice. At least offer two lens sizes Canon, that would be something. I'm really interested in where they take this.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
I can't see them moving the 7D line to the M series. The M series is such a special system. Unless it is only meant as a temporary replacement. Use your EF Tele on a larger APS-C mirrorless, until the RF system has the native lenses and bodies you want. The R5 almost matches the 7D II in terms of reach, and probably surpasses it in anything but build quality. That 32 MP sensor is intriguing, but if they scale that up to FF, what's left for EF-M to offer that RF won't?

From what I understand the 7D is really just a niche for the folks who liked to minimize the compromize on build quality and AF performance without paying 1D series-cash. Both qualities made it well suited for wildlife applications, together with the inherent crop of APS-C. But for that, you'd certainly use a huge lens. And that's just the opposite of what Canon seems to see in the M series. Mind you that the only Tele lens patent we saw was for a lens that was 360 mm f/7.1 on the long end. Not quite what a 7D guy would use, although it of course fits into Canon standard EF-M dimensions.

And would they really pollute their quirky system of lenses that all have the same outer diameter (which is also the outer mount diameter) with a proper Tele just for one niche type of customer? That could probably spend the money on a higher level RF body to use with their existing EF Tele?

It would be nice. At least offer two lens sizes Canon, that would be something. I'm really interested in where they take this.
I think we'll see a situation where the 7D folks have a choice between a fancy M, and a high res RF full frame run in crop mode.

Whether Canon will ever decide to offer even *slightly* wider (I mean physical width) lenses for the M is another issue; they may be starting to realize that not just rank beginners are using the system, and there are a lot of compact lenses, and they may decide it's okay to offer something slightly less compact in addition to what's there.
 
Jul 17, 2012
84
4
An RF → EF-M adapter is physically impossible due to the differences in throat diameter and the depth behind the flange of the lugs on the RF mount.
Not quite. It would obviously be possible with an optical element or possibly by giving up focus on infinity, as some FD-EF adapters did. Whether or not they could be made well enough and cheap enough, I don't know, but I rather expect someone will try even if Canon won't.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
36
15
Johannesburg
I know I'm unusual being an M user who wants to bolt a 400 mm lens to his camera. Honestly, just stick the doggone adapter on it and go. I don't get why people kvetch so much about adapters--at least not THESE adapters which are simple pass-throughs (ones with optics in them translating one camera's protocol to another, I could understand). In fact these adapters are basically just extension tubes with different diameters at each end.
Agreed. I have the adapter too, had it since the vanilla M and now on my M5. It works and it works well, everytime.
But the nerds will always complain. They complained that you had to buy the adapter for M mount. Now, when Canon launched RF mount bodies with the EF-RF adapter in the box, they still complained.