I doubt that would be feasible. But they could make an APS-C MILC with the R mount, and an adapter for M lenses (albeit likely a rather kludgy adapter). But really, I don’t think either will actually happen. If Canon had felt mounting RF lenses on APS-C MILCs was important, they’d have built that capability in from the outset (e.g. designed the R mount with a longer FFD such than an R-to-M adapter would be possible).I think adapting RF lenses to current EOS-M cameras is impossible. But what about a future EOS-M camera? Could Canon make a mount that adjusts to accept either EF-M or RF lenses?
Nikon tried that. Conceded the high-end crop sensor market to Canon's 7D line. It didn't work out so well for them. Hence the D500. Mirrorless technology just isn't capable of competing for the same customers as the 7D and D500 line is targeted at. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.A different thought: perhaps what Canon is signaling is that the APS-C format is being re-situated for consumers ONLY...
I see no reason to believe that mirrorless (and the new R system) will REPLACE DSLRs and EF lenses. Certainly not in the near future (meaning 10 years or more). As long as a fairly large percentage of people like OVFs better (and better battery life - meaning most birders, sports shooters and wildlife folks) the DSLR and the EF lines will continue. The fact that Canon continues to make new EF lenses is evidence that they have no plans to replace EF with RF.I do not understand the strategy at all. They at the same time will announce highest end EF Superteles (after releasing very expensive TS Lenses recently), high end RF lenses and a higher end EF-M lens. So i do not see which mount will be obsolete next.
Generally, i would say the lower end EF-M and EF-S lenses and bodies can be obsoleted the easiest, without upsetting customers (as the Nikon 1). Most users have a single body with kit lens, which they will replace by a new kit at given time, by a Smartphone maybe.
EF-S is maybe even less relevant, this lenses can be used on M, and on RF it's less relevent, who buys a FF camera to use it in crop mode.
EF-R is the new line, and they come with some offers that look serious. It should stay in future
EF could be replaced by EF-R over time, depending on the success of the new mount. EF is usable on EF-R and a mount conversion service for the newer/more expensive lenses would be thinkable.
But anyways, as a heavily invested EF User, i feel somehow frustrated. My mount could get obsolete, my lenses loosing value much faster than planed, my bodies not beeing suitable for the newest lenses. This is emotional of course, but at the moment i am not in mood for money spending, so better use what i have, knowing that my skills will be the limiting factor for ever. But it kills the GAS, and in some years i might be no longer using my old gear, and buy a entry level compact camera, in G9 style maybe (or a better phone)
In opposit to the FD > EF Transition, this now not promises so much progress. mirrorless by itself may be a hype, but it does not make my pics better. Autofocus did and the digital development was fast these days. It's not comparable.
Absolutely agree. I have an M5 with full complement of EOS M lenses. Use for people and landscapes. Easy to carry and work with. I also have FF and APC bodies and lenses for Wildlife and birds. Two different beasts. The M5 and adapter is a backup body for the others.I have some thoughts on this because I also reached this conclusion after reading the "specs" we're all taking as fact.
1.) There isn't a single lens on the EF-M mount I would want to adapt on a full-frame sensor and then crop in. It's no secret that the 22mm is a great little lens, but beyond that, only the 11-22mm is really anything special. I have the M50 for size and convenience. It's a somewhat pocketable 80D and it's what I use it as exclusively. I pack a full roller bag when I travel for work and can slip the M50 with the 22mm almost anywhere. The M lineup of lenses...or lack there of, have all shared a focus on size over performance. It's honestly what I like about it. Sure, faster lenses would be nice, but with more light comes more heft. It's fine if they wish to offer larger, faster lenses...but it doesn't appear that Canon is considering that with zooms any time soon.
2.) If these rumors hold true, Canon will now be selling lenses for four different camera mounts - EF-S, EF-M, EF, and RF. The only true discrepancy in this lineup is that the two mirrorless camera mounts won't play together...I'm sure Canon has looked at its lens sales and understands it's not really missing out on very many cross platform support. As mentioned above, Canon full-frame was never able to work with EF-S lenses. But, you have now lost the upgrade path of buying a crop sensor body and investing in full-frame lenses to upgrade over time. You can no longer do this in the mirrorless ecosystem
What does this mean for the future of the EOS-M mount? Like others have said, I really hope they maintain a priority of keeping the M system as compact as possible. God knows that the RF 28-70 and 50mm f/1.2 won't be. If you want a light, consumer/prosumer camera to take on vacation, shoot video or vlog with, the EOS-M series is your ticket. If you're looking for a professional mirrorless system, the RF cameras is your choice.
I admit, this creates concerns for the future of the M-mount. But I'm extremely happy they didn't try to force the mount to work with full-frame and make sacrifices in capabilities, performance and the future overall.
that would result on M cameras being also deeper because of the 44mm flange distance requirement to remove all adapters as you suggest. The reality is that you don't have to go to this extreme: all you needed to do, if you decide to introduce a new mount is consider supporting both sensors sizes properly, unlike canon/sony did . Sony just rammed the FF sensor in and they are pretty cramped there now, but they avoided a 2 mirrorless mount problem similar to canon's today. Canon obviously went the other direction and ended up with two incompatible mounts for each sensor. Nikon, having always supported cropped and full frame backwards and forwards regardless of body type with the F mount (they call it FX/DX), did the right thing form the start: big throat for very fast FF lenses, and pushed it all the way to 16mm so that most optical designs can either be adapted (included EF glass), or repurposed, such as any lens made by the sigmas of the world for existing mirrorless systems...even M4/3s (not that you'd want but you could...) These would not be adapted, just re-released as Z-compatible similarly to how they do today for EF and F mounts. It is the same design, just different housing. Off course Nikon being...Nikon hasn't released the new high speed BUS spec of the Z mount and I read this interview where the executive basically said: "they'll reverse engineer it anyway", they being, Sigma and the rest.So a 28-70/2 won't mount on an M-series camera. Who cares. It seems like small price to pay to have EF compatible with the R series.
In hindsight, Canon could have made the M-series with a mount similar to the R-series so that the M-series would accept EF, EF-S, EF-R and EF-M, all without adapters. I think this would have required a larger mount than the current one.
I think the 32/1.4 indicates that Canon now sees the M market mature enough to move it up a bit, but stay true to the smal-light-cheap mantra. It's a separate marked similar to what other crop systems offer. Use EF if you want to via a simple adapter and thats it. (But even a EF 50/1.8 looks redicoulus on a M.)yup. Pretty much what me and others said repeatedly when we saw a 20mm registration distance. It is not a new argument but at least it is the first time I see somebody point it out outside of a forum. I guess the honey moon is over and people are starting to realize...oh crap it doesn't fit R lenses on my M and vice versa. Canon releasing a new M lens at least indicates they aren't done with M...yet...
CR admin pointed out that if strategy is a concern, you're not accounting for people who start with cropped sensor but invest in FF lenses to eventually migrate into. So if you buy an M and bought that 35 1.8 R macro, you could just use it as it had been the case with EF-S/EF or Nikon's DX/FX or sony's E/FE...I think the 32/1.4 indicates that Canon now sees the M market mature enough to move it up a bit, but stay true to the smal-light-cheap mantra. It's a separate marked similar to what other crop systems offer. Use EF if you want to via a simple adapter and thats it. (But even a EF 50/1.8 looks redicoulus on a M.)
RF is for people who want a step up from crop but if you're at this point you want better glas anyway. I guess over the years more non-L will be seen, but it's clever to start this way, so you get yor R&D back faster. I wouldn't be surprised if RF lenses stay rather shortish for quite some time but there will be more affordable lenses.
EF-S lenses cover moste of the range that can be made really smaller, lighter and cheaper than similar FF lenses and the bodies are cheaper also. Not everybody can or wants to spend thousands of €/$/.. for kilos of gear when they can get not much less image quality for a fraction of size and price. And a lot of people will and want to stick to an OVF. I see no large gaps in Canons EF-S lineup, so development will be slow, but today everything is covered between 10-250mm on different pricepoints. A STM here and a Mk II update there and thats it.
That leaves EF and the beauty of it is that it fits flawless on ALL of the above mentioned cameras/mounts. So think about it's future..
PS: EF is sort of the "short flange distance" hype in reverse: you can fit it on a LOT of things.