Thanks flip314! A top guy at Sony once defended their mount by saying that size doesn't really matter! It is important to see that the M mount is the best for APS-C.
Upvote
0
The flipside to that is that each lens you put on your compact camera is now 8mm wider than if you used a APS-C specific mount like Canon Ef-m (And Sony E ).
The EOS M system is the most efficient way to get small and light. The Nikon APS-C mirrorless offering already makes a compromise in that regard due to the mount.
Simply speaking not everyone has EF-M or EF or EF-S lenses when they purchase an RF body. In that respect those people (me included) it less likely or very cautious about buying non native lenses. Especially when it comes to the whole “high speed display” setting that is only available for RF glass
So... I have the R and it is of fair size. The M cameras and now the DX-Z bodies look to be quite small in comparison. But it seems extremely silly to me to buy into a second camera system. Like I would love to have the M6II with the RF 35 mounted to it as my everyday on the go camera. Instead I will stick to the R with the 50stm adapted on to it.
Thing is that it isn’t only limited to that FL example. If I spend 3k almost on the 70-200 I would like the option of using that expensive piece of glass on a APS-C body that I own rather than having a lens that replicates that FL range but is likely to not be optically as good.
THAT is the reason why having the same mount for FF and Crop is a nice option to have.
If it were the case I would own a M6II right now. Since it is not the case it is fair game to consider Fuji and nikon for my crop sensor needs since going EOS-M would entail the same exercise of maintaining a separate system.
Now if I owned a bunch of EF lenses it would be a different proposition.
Thanks flip314! A top guy at Sony once defended their mount by saying that size doesn't really matter! It is important to see that the M mount is the best for APS-C.
Yes. It was more like a research paper done bu Fuji. It confirmed three things:I seem to recall, but my memory may have failed, that there was a recent list of optimal flange diameters for lens design and the EF-M was particularly good. Perhaps someone can dig it up.
Thanks for looking deeper into this. You are absolutely right if you plug in the 55mm diameter of the Z flange into the equation you do get 80. Looking into it more deeply still, they use the inner diameter of the lens mount in the calculation.What they should be using is the actual diameter of the circular black mask further back in the mount, which is much less. It look like in the photo that the inner mask is about a10mm smaller.The Nikon Z mount would score 80 for an APS-C (DX) size sensor, which beats the EF-M mount.
The Canon RF mount would score 68.4 for a Canon-size APS-C sensor (so, also higher than the EF-M mount, but not as high as Nikon).
Come to think of it that pretty much is the camera I want!i'd still prefer the upgradibility of using the full frame z lenses.
My same argument applies to canon making an rf mount aps-c. (insert ob canon "Please take the M6ii internals and place them in a R body, or even an RP body, add a bit more buffer and call it a day") edit: (and take my money!!!)
We all have our opinion of TN and his comments about Canon But, he does the same to everyone now. The Nikon folk are up in arms about his latest broadside on the Z50. Everything about it is wrong, especially the size of the mount. TN just thrives on badmouthing. I suppose its more entertaining and doesn't require the effort of producing a proper review.
Does anyone watch TN for anything else?I suppose its more entertaining
Does anyone watch TN for anything else?
I am very much afraid that many do take him seriously.Does anyone watch TN for anything else?