Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]

[Michael Clark]

I like your photos

Thank you. Thank'ya'vera'much!

 

[dilbert]

no it doesn't
the instruction set for moving a lens to a location is a few bytes of data.

Yes and it takes time for those bytes to be sent, processed, etc. That is part of very real limitations on the being able to keep a lens focused with real-time moving targets.

If the "synchronous" also implies simplex operation, where a lens can either send or receive data but not do both, then there a set points in the communications cycle when that can happen.

 

[Antono Refa]

Canon makes a REALLY big deal over a few mm's in size difference.

Canon makes a big deal over what would increase its bottom line. Apparently EOS-M makes more money being 10mm smaller than having RF mount. Nothing wrong about that, same as nothing wrong about me buying a 5DmkIV or R5. As I wrote, its a matter of personal preferences, opinions, etc.

 

[Psamathe]

I can see there is a cost to having lots of different ranges particularly where those ranges compete against each other. But to what extent do the R and M ranges compete against each other?

For me they are "competitive". Any camera is a compromise and in my case I do nature and travel photography (where M better for travel and R better for nature). APS-C is fine for me.

If the new R6 had 30+ megapixels I'd probably have ordered one. I love my 100-400L lens and I can seeing that being more "practical" on an R series. But for travel an M series would be far better (with an EVF) and struggle with the 100-400L for less frequent travel use.

Rumours about lines being "killed-off" have a big impact on my choices. Everything becomes redundant over time but one consideration with camera gear is 2nd hand value and whilst I might have the M-series lenses I want, 2nd hand value if the line is discontinued makes it less valuable (particularly for anybody wanting different M-series lenses to those I have).

It all becomes amazingly complex (for me) as you might get into costs for retailers stocking a wider range - will retailers be holding low stocks where there are more ranges (frequently "out-of-stock") - which might further limit sales.

Ian

 

[Psamathe]

One question about mounts and M and R series:
There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?

I appreciate using R series lenses on M bodies might less than ideal (R diameters being significantly larger) but same or worse would presumably apply to EF lenses on an M body with the available adapter.

(I only have a Canon APS-C DSLR so I' ready to upgrade but have no experience of the R nor M series bodies nor lenses)

Ian

 

[koenkooi]

One question about mounts and M and R series:
There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?
[..]

Only if there's glass in the adapter, without glass you can't create a 2mm thick adapter where all the bajonet lugs fit.

 

[SteveC]

One question about mounts and M and R series:
There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to M bodies. There is an adapter to fit EF lenses to R bodies. Is it technically possible for an adapter to fit R-series lens to M bodies?

I appreciate using R series lenses on M bodies might less than ideal (R diameters being significantly larger) but same or worse would presumably apply to EF lenses on an M body with the available adapter.

(I only have a Canon APS-C DSLR so I' ready to upgrade but have no experience of the R nor M series bodies nor lenses)

Ian

I'll elaborate on koenkooi's reply. The EF-M and RF lenses sit at very similar distances from the focal plane, but both are quite different from the EF distance to the focal plane. So the EF -> M adapter and EF -> R adapters can (optically) be empty tubes that just space the lens, so that the EF lens sits as far away from the sensor as it would on an EF camera.

But the difference between EF-M and RF is two milimeters, and one can't construct a tube that short and have the flanges on it, the flanges would interfere with each other.

One *could* create an adapter (in either direction, though I imagine R->M would be more desirable) that used optics to alter the necessary difference, but as far as I know, no one has done this or even begun to do it.

 

[Psamathe]

.....
One *could* create an adapter (in either direction, though I imagine R->M would be more desirable) that used optics to alter the necessary difference, but as far as I know, no one has done this or even begun to do it.

For me, an adapter with glass is not a "problem". I appreciate there would likely be some quality loss but a big functionality gain. I'd be far happier with a Canon manufactured adapter as I'd have more confidence in communications. I assume there would need to be some software support as well so I assume/guess Canon would be doing it anyway.

(If I didn't say it (confused) it is an R (lens)->M (body) that I was asking about (as EF-M is already available).

Ian