Opinion: Canon is causing its own problems with the RF mount

[photonius]

Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?

Size! I'm very happy with my light-weight rebel body, and light EF-S 10-24, 18-55, 55-250 lenses. But I'm also happy to put the 100-400 L II, or a EF macro lens on that body. I'd never buy a 100-400 and matching RF body, just to be able to use a 100-400 lens. And I doubt Canon will create their whole lens lineup in duplicate mounts for RF and M.

 

[olympus593]

Something about this whole RF mount talk also tells me that EF-S is basically a dead-alive series, just for the entry-line segment, in other words, Rebel line.

Both 80D and 7D2 currently act as a bridge between 2 worlds, with better build quality and nice features for a reasonable price. The question that remain is: will there be mirrorless equivalents these cameras, since Canon split their mirrorless lineup in 2 distinct lines?

I can see a 7D-like camera with RF mount and APS-C or APS-H sensor, but I find no sense in having a feature heavy camera with EF-M mount.

 

[VORON]

Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.

That's a common mistake. The stock photos of sensor are made from large distance, otherwise it's really difficult to make a good lighting. The lens projects the image on sensor from the distance of 18 mm. Even from 4 cm, the corners are obvious:

 

[Josh Leavitt]

It's an interesting dilemma. But I can see the EF-M line being perfectly safe in terms of sales potential if Canon chose to use it as their dedicated amateur/semi-pro video platform in addition to their consumer-grade stills cameras. Canon's APS-C sensors have a diameter of 26.82mm, and the Super35 2 perf format has a diameter of 26.58mm. In my mind, it's an ideal format for maximizing the image circle projection of the EF-M glass. Canon's DPAF is already the best in the business, so an ILC video camera accepting native EF-M glass with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio sounds like a significant opportunity to challenge Sony for the amateur video market. Canon has never been shy about product segregation anyhow, so I think an EF-M super35 video camera would be quite impressive in terms of frame rate, log recording, and color sampling.

 

[Sporgon]

Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?

People who don't want all the drawbacks of FF !!

More expensive, less depth of field, more stability required (res for res), larger more expensive and heavier lenses, samee for bodies, the list goes on !

The camera companies need to sell new cameras, and maybe they now see FF as the way to do this, but I bet it doesn't last that long once the expense hits home.

And I am a FF user, but wouldn't consider myself typical of the majority of people who use a camera.

 

[Respinder]

Huh. Sony E-mount is narrower than Canon EF-M mount (46.1mm vs. 46.5mm). If the Sony E-mount cameras can take full-frame FE lenses why can't EF-M bodies? Also, Sony users are complaining about vignetting and problems with wide-angle lenses with E-mount. Sony could have avoided that problem by using Konica-Minolta's wider A-mount (49.7mm diameter), which was designed for 35mm full-frame, unlike the E-mount which was designed for NEX-style compact ILCs. So I can also argue that Sony painted themselves into a corner by using a lens mount designed for small cameras and shoehorning full-frame lenses for it. Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.

Exactly this. I disagree that Canon should have used the "M" mount for this FF mirrorless, because they would have painted themselves in the same corner as Sony. Moving forward, both Canon and Nikon will be able to take advantage of the larger diameter RF and Z mounts respectively for their mirrorless systems, while Sony will remain constrained with the E-mount, due to its design being meant for crop sensor cameras; not full frame.

I do agree that there will be consumer confusion with Canon having four different lens systems, and they need to work quickly to correct this. As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful, but I still wonder whether the long-term plan is to eventually phase out the M system in favor of the RF system?

 

[Sporgon]

As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful,

Arguably ? You'd struggle to make any argument against that !

 

[tmroper]

It seems to me that the EOS-M is inexpensive enough that most people who want one will be happy enough with one or two lenses, and use it for certain limited things only. It's not a "system" camera that can handle the whole spectrum of photo activities. You buy it and use it for what it is, not for dreaming about f/1.2 lenses, etc.

 

[Respinder]

Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?

Yes - completely agree with this point as well.
I think we need to really think about the broader photography industry as not just limited to traditional cameras, but also cell phones.
Cell phones have taken over much of the point-and-shoot business, and as photography applications become more oriented to web applications (i.e. Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) there will be more and more people using cell phones as opposed to cameras when travelling. Cell phone cameras continue to get better for the "all-in-focus" type of shots, and are developing more software solutions to replicate key features produced by traditional cameras, such as bokeh.
This means that traditional camera companies must now further widen the gap between cell phones and traditional cameras - make the technology better, including faster speeds, more megapixels, better resolutions, etc in order to attract more casual buyers. I just don't see APS-C continuing to survive in this broader market. This is especially the case when a basic entry-level APS-C with basic-quality kit lens often produces a photo that is no better than a photo captured from a modern cell phone - sad, but true. You'll never see this issue on a FF.

 

[Respinder]

Arguably ? You'd struggle to make any argument against that !

Not sure I follow.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I couldn't agree less! Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.

BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.

 

[Richard CR]

Cut the crap.

Pentax PK mount flange mount distance is 45.46mm, 1.46mm larger than EF (44mm) and there are many adapters out there, some with onboard electronics for compatibility with newer lenses. I use a "dumb" one with a PK 50mm f/1.2.

there's a problem with your logic. for starters the Pentax K mount is 44mm in diameter, which will fit INSIDE a larger EF mount of 54mm in diameter. An EF-M camera body is only 46mm, and a RF mount lens of 54mm in diameter will not fit inside unless you have control over space and time that I don't have. If it can't fit inside, it has to fit on TOP of the EF-M mount and expand outwards. But it also must have the necessary room for the lens to physically mount which requires an additional 3-4mm. There simply is not the room and space to do so.

I'm in a crap free zone over here, really.

 

[Richard CR]

I couldn't agree less! Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.

BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.

how about if Canon makes a M2 camera body with mag alloy shoots 15fps, weather sealed, nice grip with an additional battery grip and sells it as the next step up on their mirrorless APS-C lineup.

assuming it's EF-M mount you don't have the lenses for it since it's all consumer stuff, so it forces you to buy EF mount, but you probably want to pre-buy RF mounts for your eventual prosumer move to full frame at a later date, so you want that 50mm 1.2L (which turns into a gobsmackingly nice 85mm 1.2 on the crop camera) or you may want the 35mm 1.8L for the same reason. In one case (EF-M mount body) you have consumer lenses and can still use EF-S/EF lenses. In another case (RF mount body) you have RF full frame lenses but have to use EF-S lenses. Neither case is optimal.

the problem is that fantasy body can't really exist with the partitioning that Canon has done with the RF mount and EF-M mount. It's a hot mess, by design.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

That's a common mistake. The stock photos of sensor are made from large distance, otherwise it's really difficult to make a good lighting. The lens projects the image on sensor from the distance of 18 mm. Even from 4 cm, the corners are obvious:

Your photo doesn't help because it is shot at an angle, and, in any case, my point was the EF-M mount can take an FF sensor if the smaller E-Mount can. Also, the vignetting & wide-angle corner problems caused by the E-Mount is well-known.

 

[Andreos]

I don't know how this "rumor" business works, but I cant' shake the feeling that some the information we're all taking for granted will prove incorrect after the official announcement on the 5th. Hopefully things will make more sense and Canon's logic will be shown to be more integrated and customer-friendly. As it stands Canon looks poised to shoot themselves in foot quite seriously.

 

[bhf3737]

It's an interesting dilemma. But I can see the EF-M line being perfectly safe in terms of sales potential if Canon chose to use it as their dedicated amateur/semi-pro video platform in addition to their consumer-grade stills cameras. Canon's APS-C sensors have a diameter of 26.82mm, and the Super35 2 perf format has a diameter of 26.58mm. In my mind, it's an ideal format for maximizing the image circle projection of the EF-M glass. Canon's DPAF is already the best in the business, so an ILC video camera accepting native EF-M glass with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio sounds like a significant opportunity to challenge Sony for the amateur video market. Canon has never been shy about product segregation anyhow, so I think an EF-M super35 video camera would be quite impressive in terms of frame rate, log recording, and color sampling.

Respectfully, perhaps you should consider the difference in aspect ratio in calculation, too. If I'm right, Canon APS-C sensor is 22.2(w)x14.8(h) mm and Super 35 is 24.6(w)x13.8(h) mm, that is, Super 35 sensor is a bit larger in width. Therefore APS-C image circle may not fully cover the Super 35 sensor, unless M lenses are built with larger image circle, which is quite likely. However, lens makers don't publish the image circle info so we won't be sure about that. Since Super 35mm is slightly larger than APS-C, in principle, using an APS-C lens while shooting in Super 35mm mode does not seem to be practical, without further tweaks.

 

[AuroraChaserDoug]

the problem is that fantasy body can't really exist with the partitioning that Canon has done with the RF mount and EF-M mount. It's a hot mess, by design.

It's not a hot mess if it is designed to segment the market for broad consumer needs. We want cameras to be like hand tools. Buy a good socket set and it will work forever and continue to work for the grandchildren some day. If we think about cameras as TVs and other consumer products, including cars, then the RF mount and M mount are what's needed in this current market.

 

[traveller]

I couldn't agree less! Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.

The EF mount is technically superior to the F mount by virtue of it enjoying the benefits of a quarter of a century’s development of SLR camera technology. Because it is so much more recent, it incorporated technologies from day 1 that didn’t exist even in the wildest dreams of camera designers in the late 1950s. Nikon’s F mount took two decades to catch up (basically getting there with the latest ‘E’ types lenses), but is still limited by its smaller throat diameter.

The Z mount is evidently Nikon’s response to thirty years of perceived inferiority on their part, they’ve really gone to the extreme with the mount specification, making sure that they now have the biggest diameter and the shortest flange focal distance of the “big three”. Canon’s RF mount is in no way superior to Nikon Z.

BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.

Whilst with this lens in particular, not just the size but the (probable) price would be off putting for APS-C users, there will presumably be future smaller and cheaper RF mount lenses that might be more attractive. As several people have pointed out, anyone with future ambitions to buy into a full frame camera system might want to chose full frame compatible lenses. I know that when I had a Canon APS-C camera, I was careful to chose EF over EF-S lenses for all but my ultra-wide requirements. This made the decision to stick with Canon much easier to make when I upgraded to the 5D Mark III. If none of my lenses were compatible with Canon’s full frame cameras, I would have had a clean sheet and probably wouldn’t be writing this post as I’d be on Nikon Rumors b**ching about the Z7

 

[Yasko]

Well, I dont own EF-M lenses and noone can be bought in EF-M by an amount that it would really matter to him financially. If you had every EF-M lens that there is (all for crop and you knew that when you bought them), then you lived with the knowledge you would have to buy full frame lenses.
You cant use EF-S on FF DSLRs. You can‘t use EF-M on FF MILCs. Ok.
So crop will be an opportunity for EF-M, or it is just a mount for the more consumer end of MILCs that Canon offers...

 

[sebakunstpaul]

from the series "how to shoot yourself in the leg" ...