Sony E mount flange distance is 18mm. Nikon Z is 16mm, there's a 2mm AF adapter to mount E mount lenses on Nikon Z bodies (I believe the brand is TechArt)
Rumored Canon EOS M6 Mark II specifications [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That's because E mount is much narrower than Z mount. Won't work in another direction.
Most probably you did not understand, what JohnyT was trying to envision. His idea was, that M bodies, would containt some intermediate adapter, to which you would mount either an M, or RF adapter. Well, not sure there is enough of space for such a solution and it would also create a bulk, if all you would like to use, is just M lens.
IMHO, the real answer to this is to simply make a a camera with an RF mount and an APS-C sensor. Skip the M lenses.
-pekr-; Yes exactly! Two new M bodies coming!
mchris; New bodies with two thin intermediate adapters, and new firmware, done!
BillB; Two adapters, not one. Requires a new larger physical opening and mechanical interface in the new M bodies, to accommodate the larger R lens rear glass element, will increase the distance between the bottom of the M bodies to the centerline of the lens, but certainly obtainable within the existing envelope.
mchris; New bodies with two thin intermediate adapters, and new firmware, done!
BillB; Two adapters, not one. Requires a new larger physical opening and mechanical interface in the new M bodies, to accommodate the larger R lens rear glass element, will increase the distance between the bottom of the M bodies to the centerline of the lens, but certainly obtainable within the existing envelope.
Your use of the word 'simply' doesn't quite jive with Canon's investment and plans. I believe the M system is great for many folks, mostly the kind who don't frequent photo forums.
But the M is small and low cost..... for many, those are the two biggest requirements.
I was more than pleasantly surprised by how small, light weight and capable the M50 actually was when I purchased it on a whim, mostly because of the low low price. Now, it is my go to camera of choice when hiking the mtn trails and it's a great inconspicuous body, coupled with the 22 EF-M lens to just throw in the car, when knocking about town. Love it.
If your speculation is correct and Canon rolls out an improved sensor in subsequent releases, including the next gen R body, the Canon community will be a very happy one, myself included.
The Prosumer APS-C market has been very good to Canon. Most of the 80D and 7D type buyers spend a lot in quality lenses, and I'm looking forward to Canon's mirrorless offering in that segment.
Hence my desire for an APS-C RF mount camera, which ever form it takes: high end M or low end R
Hence my desire for an APS-C RF mount camera, which ever form it takes: high end M or low end R
I’m curious – how do you know that, “Most of the 80D and 7D type buyers spend a lot in quality lenses?” Canon certainly knows, but they generally do not publicly share information at that level of granularity. Sorry, but to me this sounds more like ‘I see lots of people shooting with a 7DII/80D and 100-400L when I’m shooting birds’ and extrapolating that ‘most buyers’. It’s regrettably common on this forum for people to use their own anecdotal observations to suggest that Canon should/will make the product they personally want. But perhaps you have actual data to share on what lenses buyers of the higher end APS-C DSLRs purchase/use?
Generally speaking, the experiences of people on this forum do not represent the broader population. For example, I’d bet that of those xxD/7-series users who have a telephoto lens at all, far more are shooting with a 70-300/4-5.6 non-L lens than with any of the white telezooms (and perhaps more that with all the white telezooms combined). But that’s just my guess. As I said, Canon has the data.
Personally, I doubt we’ll ever see a Canon APS-C camera with an RF mount.
I've read it in a few places that the 7D, and to a lesser degree the 80D, lead to sales of higher end glass.
Here is one source that makes that inferences: https://www.canonrumors.com/rest-well-canon-eos-7d-series-cr2/
Best
there will never be a Canon APS-C camera body with RF mount, because it makes no sense at all.
it is RF mount for FF sensors (exclusively) and EF-M mount for APS-C sensors (exclusively). Both mounts are absolutely optimized for their respective image circle.
EOS M line is 100% focussed on the only 2 reasons why crop sensor systems exist: 1) significantly smaller than FF gear and 2) significantly less expensive. Canon fully understands this, caters to it and is highly successful with EOS M - clear market leader for mirrorfree APS-C systems. Fuji does not understand the second point (significantly less expensive than FF) and is therefore limited to a tiny market share. Nikon is unable to make and sell any mirrorfree APS-C ILC system at all and that's why they have fallen to #3 market position, behind Sony, who themselves are unable to match EF-M lens lineup in terms of decent IQ, compact size and excellent price/value ratio.
quite simple to understand. kudos Canon.
it is RF mount for FF sensors (exclusively) and EF-M mount for APS-C sensors (exclusively). Both mounts are absolutely optimized for their respective image circle.
EOS M line is 100% focussed on the only 2 reasons why crop sensor systems exist: 1) significantly smaller than FF gear and 2) significantly less expensive. Canon fully understands this, caters to it and is highly successful with EOS M - clear market leader for mirrorfree APS-C systems. Fuji does not understand the second point (significantly less expensive than FF) and is therefore limited to a tiny market share. Nikon is unable to make and sell any mirrorfree APS-C ILC system at all and that's why they have fallen to #3 market position, behind Sony, who themselves are unable to match EF-M lens lineup in terms of decent IQ, compact size and excellent price/value ratio.
quite simple to understand. kudos Canon.
Kudoz to what exactly? For making them incompatible? If Canon envisioned it like that, then they are pretty much idiots. Would it take so much to make both just 20mm, so that you could use RF on M body? And if you'll try to argument, that there is not reason to, then why the EF adapter for M exist then? One thing seems to be clear - Canon created M and did not think it thru properly towards its FF MILC future. I still think Canon should stay with M, but shift it to 20mm and admit, M mount as designed, was a mistake.
Canon simply follows very different goals with their two mirrorless mounts. Making them compatible wouldn't just be difficult, it would make little sense, because they are so different. Who wants to use the huge RF lenses which clearly aim at pushing the limits of optical quality on a camera system that puts size so far up on the list of priorities that all lenses for that system have the same small diameter? Probably some people, but they simply aren't who Canon targets with the M system. The adapter is there so to easy people into the system and not be forced to make a M version of the lenses that wouldn't benefit from the mount, I guess. I wonder how many people use that to pair their M with large primes and fast zoom lenses regularly.
Even if both mounts would share 20mm flange distance, they would be incompatible. Canon EF and RF share a 54mm diameter, the M mount is smaller at just 47. In other words, adapting M lenses to RF would work with an adapter that sits inside the mount, but to go the other way you would have to add some length. The way it is now, an adapter isn't completely impossible, just very unlikely.
The M mount is designed so that Canon can make tiny lenses for it, without making too strong compromises to quality or price. Clearly RF is just the EF mount with added flexibility. It's a thicker mount, so any lens made for EF/RF will at least be larger at the mount than any lens made for the M system. Being small it what sells the M system so Canon clearly went with the right mount there.
I think it is inevitable that Canon will release an RF APS-C camera if they want to transition models like the 80D or 7D II to mirrorless. Unless they can push down the cost of high resolution FF to match those APS-C DSLR, maybe.
Well, I actully think M is 44 mm, not 47 mm, but maybe just a typo. The thing is - I don't want to adapt an M lens to the RF mount, but vice-versa - adapt an RF lens, to M mount. I know about all those weight/size arguments, but why just remove something, which could be an advantage to some? Making M mount 20mm from the start, it might mean a bit larger body, but not so much. Not so much like some of us envision and APS-C RF mount camera.
don't agree. Canon will do 1 last APS-C DSLR (90D), after that it will be EOS R(S) or EOS M (5 II) all the way. Folks will have to decide based on their needs and budgets.
Actually it might be me, who is an idiot. Having identical flange distance does not solve the situation of a different 44 vs 54 mm diameter. There would still need to be a mechanical reduction. There was one idea, but most probably difficult to realise - making an M cameras with some inter-mount, to which either the M mount or and RF one, would be mounted mechanically. But that would be too cumbersome, if not impossible ....
I don't like if options are removed with no purpose. Today my wife went to a wedding shoot. She took our 5DIV along with the 70D as a backup. But she has left our EF-S Tamron 17-50/2.8 at home with a remark, that while EF 24-70/2.8 II would be a bit long on the short end of the 70D, it would still save the day.
Any such interoperability between the M and R cameras is not possible, if we consider EF lens being mostly a dead end. I am really talking about M and R options, which Canon set for our future. Or just give us 17-50/2.8 for an M mount.
Simply put - if there is one and just one aspect of MILC I can't forgive Canon, it is exactly that - no interoperability between the M and R world.
