That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.You sound like somebody who would refuse to use this lens on 7D II because it "isn't an EF-S lens".
Upvote
0
That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.You sound like somebody who would refuse to use this lens on 7D II because it "isn't an EF-S 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.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.
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.
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.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
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
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.That’s just being silly, as is thinking adapted lenses are a satisfactory substitute for native mount lenses.
I've been saying this is exactly what Canon is doing.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.
I have had no problems with my M-Mount adapter. Canon made it work.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.
People are going to have to accept the fact that the only thing that M series and RF series cameras have in common is EF lenses...
sounds good follower for ef 400mm 5,6EF-M 500mm f/5.6 DO....amiright?
This is why I hope Canon will never release an APS-C RF lens.
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.
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.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.
Agreed. I have the adapter too, had it since the vanilla M and now on my M5. It works and it works well, everytime.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.