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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
Excellent News.
I wonder if Canon will make an R - M lens adapter. It should be doable since the M Flange focal distance is 18mm, and the R is 20mm.
My guess is that they will make one soon.
It's not doable because the throat diameter of the RF mount is much larger than the throat diameter of the EF-M mount and the lugs on RF lenses protrude more than 2mm behind the flange plate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
Where's the actual L quality glass for mirrorless esp at the lengths the 7D II was so good with? It's all RF. A prosumer 7D followup makes far more sense with the mount that has the top line glass.
The lens you mention isn’t a native EOS-M lens. It’ll have to be adapted. I still think FF R cameras with a crop mode will take over any pro crop duties. Seems pointless having a dedicated crop R camera with current mirrorless technology. Also, I can’t imagine a pro photographer carrying a high end M with adapted EF lenses and FF R with RF lenses. With DSLR, the advantage having a 7D and 5D/1D using the same lenses made much more sense.
Meh.

I still shoot the EF mount using a 7D Mark II and 5D Mark IV, III, and II. It's very rare (as in pretty much NEVER) for the lenses I use on the FF cameras to be attached to the 7D Mark II. Every once in a blue moon I might use the 70-200/2.8 on a FF body if I'm only able to use one body and need that focal length range. But lately I'm just as likely to use the 135/2 on a FF body If I need to shoot light.

Most of the time the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is on the 7D Mark II. All of my other lenses (24/35/50/85/100/135 primes and 17-40/24-70/24-105 zooms) are used on one of the FF bodies.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
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.
I'm pretty sure in this context we're talking about an adapter without optics or focal length changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.
They are native adapted lenses. The EF-M and RF protocols are extended versions of the EF protocol. No EF lens loses any capability it has when used on a EF or EF-S mount camera when it is used on an RF mount body or on an EF-M body. Zilch.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
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
Exactly.

I've owned an EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens since 2011. I bought it at the same time I got my first FF Digital SLR.

I've owned a 50D since 2009, a 7D since 2012, and a 7D Mark II since 2016.

I've not taken a single photo with the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS on one of the APS-C cameras other than a handful of test/AFMA calibration shots in case I ever needed to use such a combination in a backup role should something break.

Not once have I ever taken a "real world" image with such a combination.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
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.
Yes, a few folks did that.

But an awful lot of other folks who bought Canon APS-C cameras never bought any EF lenses, other than the nifty-fifty. They never moved up to FF. They had the kit 18-55mm, maybe an EF-S 55-250mm and/or an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,290
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.
There are also a lot of 7D Mark II shooters using them for youth/high school sports with, at most, an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS/IS II/IS III). There's probably far more of them than the number of 7D wildlife shooters. It's just that the sports guys aren't on forums like these. They're spending all of their time on social media trying to sell images and getting several thousand images a week up on their SmugMug or Zenfolio website. (At least they were before the SARS-CoV-2 virus hit.)

Some even use third party 70-200/2.8 or EF 70-200mm f/4 variations to reduce costs. The economics of youth/high school sports does not really support the cost of a fast FF camera (1D X series) and an EF 300/2.8 in addition to a 70-200mm f/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II = $3,800
1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II =$13,500

Even 5D Mark IV + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S = $6,200+ for the first 3+ years the 5D Mark IV was on the market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,200
466
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
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.
It would be complicated and expensive. Remember the RF protocols are 30 years more advanced than the EF protocols, and the M bodies don't understand RF protocols. So you'd need a CPU fast enough to be able to understand the RF protocols and convert them back into EF/EF-M protocols. You need glass to correct the difference in flange distance but this has to somehow be good enough to justify using a $3000 lens on a $800 camera.

It's probably going to be cheaper to buy an EOS RP than to buy an adaptor.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,200
466
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
The EF-M and RF protocols are extended versions of the EF protocol.
Not entirely right, the RF protocol is very different to EF (runs at a far higher clock speed for example) but the RF bodies are designed from the start to talk both RF and EF protocols, so EF lenses and RF lenses both work natively. The adaptor for the EF-RF lenses simply allows physical connection.

This is why third parties can do "RF" lenses because they are using the mount with the older EF protocols. No-one yet understands the RF protocols outside Canon, which is why you won't see third party lenses with control rings.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,483
425
Davidson, NC
There are also a lot of 7D Mark II shooters using them for youth/high school sports with, at most, an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS/IS II/IS II). There's probably far more of them than the number of 7D wildlife shooters. It's just that the sports guys aren't on forums like these. They're spending all of their time on social media trying to sell images and getting several thousand images a week up on their SmugMug or Zenfolio website. (At least they were before the SARS-CoV-2 virus hit.)

Some even use third party 70-200/2.8 or EF 70-200mm f/4 variations to reduce costs. The economics of youth/high school sports does not really support the cost of a fast FF camera (1D X series) and an EF 300/2.8 in addition to a 70-200mm f/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II = $3,800
1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II =$13,500

Even 5D Mark IV + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 S = $6,200+ for the first 3+ years the 5D Mark IV was on the market.
A few years ago I attended a large Kelby seminar. It happened that the folks around me were parents of high school football players. The guy sitting next to me shot a lot of pictures at the games and sold them to other parents. I was not familiar with the 7D. I was still in Rebel territory in those days and hadn't looked into other models. The parents around me were in two categories: those who had a 7D, and those who were planning to get one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

clbayley

EOS 80D
Aug 28, 2016
160
29
Why not EF 500 f/5.6 DO?? The size and weight of long telephotos is dominated by the front elements so the two variations should be about the same size and weight.
Just a little snark on my end. There are lots off comments about small EF-M lenses being all that is needed. I was just poking that there are those of us who use a crop with long lenses. EF makes the most sense, but if the M mount will be the only APS-C camera, then make a dedicated crop long lens to match!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
553
336
I guess EF-M 400mm F5,6 DO would make more sense . Canon havent upgraded ef version 20 year so i guess they havent intrest doing so small big whites.
And it wouldnt make any full frame shooter too yealous :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: clbayley

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
Yes, a few folks did that.

But an awful lot of other folks who bought Canon APS-C cameras never bought any EF lenses, other than the nifty-fifty. They never moved up to FF. They had the kit 18-55mm, maybe an EF-S 55-250mm and/or an EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm.
Not to forget the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 which was also a kit lens.

Edit: I mean 75-300.
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,463
723
Just a little snark on my end. There are lots off comments about small EF-M lenses being all that is needed. I was just poking that there are those of us who use a crop with long lenses. EF makes the most sense, but if the M mount will be the only APS-C camera, then make a dedicated crop long lens to match!
As mentioned that kind of lens wouldn't be smaller. Given than there are also EF-S and EF mounts that do not have this kind of lens it is only logical that this lens made first for EF mount. That would have a lot of buyers (at least much more than the M users only).