I'm highly sceptical of how committed Canon is to RF-S. Canon did release some surprisingly nice crop lenses, like the EF-S60mm macro, EF-M 11-22mm and all EF-M primes. But seeing how the EF-M system was managed by Canon, I really get why people want to see a roadmap and why Canon doesn't want to publish one!
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
An adapter to mount RF lenses on an M body would need to be just 2 mm thick, which is very problematic from a practical standpoint. As for why Canon didn't stick with EOS M for APS-C and EOS R for FF, I thought they would but Canon knows the market better than anyone here, and obviously they thought it would be profitable for them to make APS-C EOS R cameras and lenses.
EDIT: I read it the wrong way around. The point about needing optics still stands, though.
True, but effectively the market is still going to be pretty segmented, as the ability to use RF-S glass on a full-frame body seems only half a step above gimmicky to me. (That is, if Canon actually produces a number of RF-S lenses on par with what they did for EF-M.)
Well, EF-M users could always adapt full-frame EF lenses but they can't use RF lenses.
Canon actually said that it can't be as well.
www.diyphotography.net
There was no equivalent to the RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11, RF 800 f/11, and RF 100-500 L on EF-M.
A lot of it boils down to how many people are buying at the low end for price and how many really value the small size? I got into the M50 for price and capabilities but have grown to appreciate its compactness, both in terms of the body and EF-M lenses, so that is definitely something I would look for if I ever got another camera (which probably won't happen for at least a decade or more barring some catastrophe with my current equipment). I do agree that you need to offer access to bigger/higher-end lenses for those who want to go there without upgrading their body, too. And I as well have the EF 50 f/1.8, which I was just barely able to squeeze with the adapter into the case I use for my M50, which also carries three EF-M lenses and several accessories.
Sure, and it seems Canon wants believes the segmentation will be profitable for them. That's really at the core of their decision, they're a for-profit company, after all.
It really boils down to how much revenue will they fail to capture if they don't offer RF-S glass because people don't want the larger and more expensive RF glass vs. how much they will fail to capture by selling RF-S glass where that investment becomes a deterrent to upgrading from an APS-C body to a full frame down the road? I don't know if they have that all figured out yet.
Given their experience with EF / EF-S and the fact that they became the market leader 20 years ago and continue to dominate the market today, I'm pretty sure they have things figured out fairly well.
That's sidestepping the question a bit. You're saying "Canon has been very, very successful so far", which isn't really answering "How much revenue will they fail to capture?". Hypothetically speaking and making up all the numbers out of thin air, Canon could gain 0.5% more market share by offering more RF-S, and they could have (in future hindsight, still inside the hypothetical) accurately predicted that but decided on a different course, e.g. less market share, more profit. Or they refuse to believe they can grow by introducing more RF-S lenses.
Anyone can play the woudla-shoulda-coulda game, there's really no answer to the question of,"How much revenue will they fail to capture?," by doing X or not doing Y. In this case, I suspect the line of questioning (how much revenue will they fail to capture if they don't offer RF-S glass) falls into the category of many comments/arguments made on this forum – namely, that Canon is doing or not doing something that an individual disagrees with, and thus Canon is probably (or definitely, according to some) making a poor business decision. In this case, @kmrahe personally wants more RF-S lenses, and is phrasing that desire in such a way as to imply that Canon is losing revenue because they're not doing what he personally wants. I suspect the true answer is that Canon has decided to prioritize other lenses at this point, for reasons that make sense to them. That's where the 20 years of market leadership comes into play – history suggests they are usually right in these matters.
I think this is the answer. When the R bodies launched there was criticism (and still is) on the lack of native RF mount FF lenses, and less-expensive lenses. But Canon's very open strategy was to encourage the use of the full range of EF lenses. To do so they put out an enticing range of adaptors (including one with filter capacity), and the end result was that the EF lenses worked as well (if not better) on RF bodies. In this case, they'll be working on the assumption that a lot of the range of APS-C RF body buyers who want more than the kit lenses will be happy to adapt FF RF lenses, or possibly their own existing EF or EF-S lens collection.
A lot of those APS-C lenses are about the same cost, size, and weight as Canon full-frame lenses.
