There is a lot of points. I can easily name at least five. The first is: without having high-precision moving mechanical parts, it should be cheaper to manufacture.Brown said:
Jaysheldon said:Why not
--keep the EF mount for full frame mirrorless cameras
--keep the EF-M mount for those who want a lighter camera/lens package, including those light F6.3 and f5.6 lenses. (in other words, if you want a 70-200 f4 you have to go full frame. You want light, it means light lenses -- and Canon can market the hell out of lightness. You want big lenses, go with a bigger camera). This mount replaces the EF-S cameras/lenses. (In other words, better to piss off EF-S lens owners than EF lens owners)
The flaw in this, I admit, is it means Canon has to maintain a two-lens line.
fullstop said:So from 2 mounts in the DSLR era: EF / EF-S to 2 mounts in the mirrorless age: "EF-X", EF-M
No flaw, perfectly fine.
jolyonralph said:I guess it's possible that you could have an EF-X mount that is wider than EF-M, but can take an adaptor to connect EF-M lenses.
fullstop said:littleB said:
If Canon really were to go with a stupid EF-nozzle on their FF mirrorless cameras, I'll have to switch to Nikon, which will truly save their a** and start the final CAN-AGGEDON! No, I am never alone in my purchasing decisions but usually find *millions of people* around the world buying exactly the same things. ;D
ahsanford said:Some folks want to use their EF lenses in a mirrorless context, hate adaptors, etc. They value what mirrorless offers beyond size reduction, so they wonder why new lenses are needed at all.
fullstop said:No flaw. Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.
michi said:If the Canon equivalent will cost the same, and with a new lens mount, it will be out of my league. I am willing to spend a lot of money for something like a 5DIV and some L lenses every five years or so, but to start with a new mount, no thanks.