I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C.
I'm sure they'll carry on production of the current EF APS-C DSLRs for as long as there is demand for them, but new APS-C DSLRs? Doesn't look likely.
Upvote
0
I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C.
But, it would be epic to offer say a 200-600 zoom in a lightweight RF/APS-C size with L-quality build, and say f~8 largest aperture. I’m not sure if the market for such a lens is large enough for the investment, but imagine.The $64,000 question: will they follow suit with Nikon and Sony and make smaller/lighter/cheaper APS-C sized RF lenses to go with it?
If they don't, it's Canon's way of saying 'FINE. Here's your damn 7D3, you guys never stop asking for it!' but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors.
If they do, yowza -- it would mark the beginning of the end for both EF-M *and EF-S* mount bodies.
- A
They should do what Nikon did. Have a high performance APS-C body with RF mount and 2 or 3 basic lenses. And keep the M mount for the compactness, just add 1-2 lenses per year.
That should be enough for 90% of the customers.
45mp+ would be a a lot sweeter...How much MP can we expect? A new 24MP would be sweet! But maybe they will use the 30MP of the 90D/6MII?
I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C. I figured Canon would continue that because it draws a lot of customers, but if APS-C on RF mount or in R body style becomes a thing, maybe Canon is considering a larger pivot to mirrorless. The EF-M transition pathway to RF is obviously much more clunky than EF-S to EF was, so there is reason to consider that path.
Naaah, the biggest problem with the M6 Mk II is that it's relatively slow and kludgy to adjust settings on the fly.Wasn't there a rumor a while back about a new M-series camera placed above the M6II? Maybe this is it. Honestly the M6II is great in actual use. Two things missing that make it lackluster and unsuitable as a replacement for the 7DII - not the most robust build (don't mean size), and more importantly the lack of tracking options/cases to make it suitable for tough situations like BIF.
They should do what Nikon did. Have a high performance APS-C body with RF mount and 2 or 3 basic lenses. And keep the M mount for the compactness, just add 1-2 lenses per year.
That should be enough for 90% of the customers.
Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...I don't think the 7D crowd will be happy with an EF-M mount camera now, they will want the new RF long lenses.
Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...
Having said that, the EF-M mount has lightweight and high quality primes such as the 22mm, 28mm macro and 35mm along with the super 11-22mm ultrawide, so if Canon were to produce an upmarket EF-M body and perhaps the new 100-400 f/5.5-7.1 as an EF-M lens for those wanting lighter zooms.
Centimetres or inches?I just imagined an EOS R with 6x7 sensor
If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp.
I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.
There's no need for a new mount, but an RF to M adapter would be cool.
Is there any reason that a RF lens couldn't work on an M body if there was an appropriate adapter?