Canon EF-M was definitely NOT designed to be FF-capable. There was an interview with a Canon exec who stated it. Can prob dig it out if really necessary. EF-M might possibly be "forced into FF service", just like the Sony E-mount. With all known downsides: lenses way longer, more complex, heavier and more expensive than need be = Sony FE. From how the chronology of events I am also quite certain that Sony did not design E-mount to be FF capable from the start. E-mount parameters are well chosen for APS-C but borderline for FF. Had Sony really wanted to also use it for FF, they would have made the throat width a few mm wider and things would have been much easier going forward.jolyonralph said:When the mount size and electrical contact positioning of the EF-M mount is almost *identical* to the Sony FE mount I can't see why we still have doubters. Well, I suppose in a world of Flat Earthers etc I shouldn't be that surprised. But the evidence is right there in front of your eyes. EF-M is full-frame capable. It was designed to be so, just as the Sony E/FE mount was.ahsanford said:[Adds "Is EF-M big enough to cover FF sensors" to the endless/unresolved debate queue, alongside the choice to use UV/clear filters or not.]
Only due to the amount of discussion in the internets re. "the many mounts Sony has and how terribly confusing that is, OMG" and with all the angst by some vocal old A-mount farts, did Sony decide to NOT introduce a wisely chosen mirrorless FF mount (in addition to APS-C E mount). Poor results of that poor decision are evident.