It is about having a system without compromises.I'm baffled as to why Canon is continuing with the M mount system given it's incompatibility with the RF mount. As there are only a few lenses for it no one can be heavily invested in the system. It made sense when M cameras could be adapted to all other lenses in the Canon system, but no sense now. In a few years time when far more Canon users have RF mount lenses, why would they be interested in a system totally incompatible with many of their lenses? Whereas if Canon started creating RF mount APS-C cameras they'd retain full compatibility across the whole system. Surely this would be the best point in time to kill off the M range?
In EF-M, they can make truly small, compact crop lenses. They couldn't be so small in RF, due to the much wider throat. The current lenses are essentially just as wide as the mount and if you never have helt one in your hands I highly recommend trying them. I was shocked to see how small they really are, compared to the impression I got from pictures.
Also, this way, we don't need to get into the messy boundary between high end APS-C and low end FF lenses, where equivalency makes for some redundant designs. They don't need to make a 17-55 mm 2.8 when you can just buy a 24-105 mm 4.0 L. With the RP showing that Canon can approach APS-C body pricing already, and future sales numbers likely reducing fixed cost per unit further, I find it easy to think of APS-C as something that is only needed for very compact cameras and lenses now. And the EF-M mount is just perfect for that.
Upvote
0