Upvote
0
I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
I do not not have a source. I am basing this on the speculation that the entry level bodies sell better and don't need a spectacular AF and viewfinder that a 7d body would need. I think sports people might want a very low latency view finder, the one on the R felt like it was a little behind the subject.
I don't know; even knowing the EF-M will never be a pathway to R, I've still be looking at an M6II as a really good potential option for a minimalist camera setup I can keep with me or use on very long hikes. I don't know how small an RF lens can get, so I'm not sure that the RF mount bodies will be able to create as truly small of a camera kit as EF-M. My biggest hesitation, as you mention, has been lens selection - though I'm not convinced that there's no niche there. I don't see the M series ever being considered flagship competitors, but for size conscious users it's still a good option I think.
I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?
I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?
Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
"...but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body."
Why wouldn't they develop lenses tailored to the smaller image circle, which would force an upgrade to RF from RF-S glass?
Doesn't seem to make business sense, which makes me skeptical of the entire rumor.
Agreed. I have an RP and an M6. They are both excellent cameras, and they complement each other perfectly. While the RP is certainly smaller and lighter than my previous 5D series, it's still not the same as carrying an M6. Like you mention, the M series is perfect for when you want the absolute smallest / lightest camera for long hikes and carrying around all day for hours. I use the RP and M6 pretty equally because they each have great things to offer either in terms of image quality or portability. And don't let anyone tell you the M lenses are garbage. They're great. The zooms may not have the fastest apertures, but for general everyday photography they are excellent and very sharp.
I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...
Sure, but EF-M doesn't hold exclusive rights to being small and light. An RF mount camera (crop or FF):
So I'd imagine you could make a very very small RF body. Like EOS M (1) small, perhaps a hair taller for the RF mount diameter difference. But thickness and width could be EOS M sized if they wanted.
- Has a shallow flange to sensor distance
- Does not require an FF grip
- Does not require an EVF and could be used like an M6 off the LCD
- Does not require a massive battery
View attachment 188330
The question is not whether Canon could do it -- the question is would Canon ever commit to the tiny RF camera idea -- would canon ever make tiny crop-only RF lenses to go with it? This rumor says no. We'll see.
(Again: I'm not an advocate for this, think it necessarily will happen or hate EOS M -- but there's no reason why RF could not fill the tiny camera niche.)
- A
But Canon may possess marketing information that shows how much money they are losing by crop users not wanting to move up to FF because of the EF-M glass they've gathered.
+1. All day.
I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).
Also, some folks pack a tiny EOS M in their bags on trips as a backup/second body. And if the trip was a birding trip, safari, etc. there's a good chance a large EF lens is being adapted on it.
I work in a different engineering field, but the adage of 'if you allow Part A to click into Part B -- regardless of how silly it would be to do that -- someone is going to do it' would certainly apply here. I don't think many folks are adapting 600 primes on their M6s, but someone out there has certainly tried to use it that way.
- A
AgreeI think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
Honestly I think Nikon did it right with the Z50. The crop sensor kit lenses are pretty small, but still you can use the FF lenses like a 35mm prime on the Z50 as well as its full frame sisters. Just one development investment needed for one single prime lens.
True. I think there’s room for both systems and Canon is certainly big enough to keep them both going for a while. The M series will end when they stop selling.Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.
There is a big market for small, light and cheap cameras. The RF mount can't satisfy this market as well as the tiny EF-M system.