Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon RF and APS-C/EF-M
#11
(07-15-2020, 09:16 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(07-12-2020, 12:50 PM)photonius Wrote: The big question with the RF mount was, if there were ever APS-C bodies coming.
Canon's stance is there are two mounts, RF (full frame) and EF-M (APS-C), the latter for small consumer oriented products. However, the EF-M line remains limited.
The new 600mm and 800mm lenses, while specialist, are really inexpensive (and light), and suited
for the enthusiast masses  (birders etc.). In theory they could go well with EF-M.
But I doubt that Canon will release them for EF-M. It looks like EF-M will remain a consumer segment with a smallish lens selection, with the usual kit zooms and a few primes.

I guess a reasonable compact RF body with high pixel density could be made, so that no APS-C specific
body is called for. However, there is the cost issue, APS-C is cheaper, and compact EF-S 10-18 and EF-S 18-55 like Kit lenses could only be made with a smaller image circle. The current 24-105 is quite light, but lacks the UWA.
Currently it doesn't look like a APS-C like body will be forthcoming. Birders have to stick the 600/800 mm lenses on a high megapixel FF body.

In the very long run though, Canon probably will have to abandon EF-M, simply because the RF communication protocol can do so much more.  So, will there ever be an RF-S line, or is that also being eaten by the smartphones. These 600 and 800 lenses are quite unexpected, and suggest the Canon is gearing the RF line now also towards lower budgets, but probably stays exclusively FF, at least for the foreseeable future?
Thoughts?
Concerning the RF lens protocol:
It is fully EF backward compatible, and has more contacts. EF-M  could have a version II, where they add more contacts (the room is there), and have a similar protocol to RF and keep EF-M version I backward compatibility.

Canon sells a lot of FF lenses compared to APS-C lenses, simply because most lens buyers have FF or FF and a smaller format. This explains the rather standard APS-C  line up.
Of course, a few who would like to use RF FF lenses on EF-M will be disappointed. 

EF-M has the big advantage over RF of much smaller bodies possible due to the smaller diameter, and small is a big seller in the mirrorless APS-C segment.

Size is not an issue for the Z50 nor for the A6xxx nor for a Leica CL ... ;-) ... yet they have an upgrade path. Unlike EOS M.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#12
(07-15-2020, 09:20 AM)Klaus Wrote: Size is not an issue for the Z50 nor for the A6xxx nor for a Leica CL ... ;-) ... yet they have an upgrade path. Unlike EOS M.

Only Nikon Z and Canon RF offer a big diameter mount, which has its advantages (certain optical designs are all of a sudden possible) and its downsides (size).

The Nikon Z50 is bigger than the competition from Canon, Sony, Fuji (and talk about lack of lenses APS-C lenses..)
That, and the Canon DPAF for video, make EF-M more viable than the whole Nikon Z range. at this pivotal moment. Only Leica CL sells less than Nikon Z APS-C ;-)

The last rumours concerning EF-M lenses date from March, just before the worldwide corona issue. It mentioned a 15mm f2, a 52mm f2, a 64mm f4 Macro, a 100-300mm f4.5-8 and a 18-45mm f2.8-4.
At least the latter lens now has surfaced in more recent rumours as being a FF FF lens instead, which gives the march rumour more credence.
#13
"Upgrade path" is an overused concept that doesn't mean as much today as it did back in 2010. Yes, it made sense back when Sony had the E-mount and they managed to (barely) fit a FF sensor in there, but now, it leads to the Nikon Z50, which is in a really poor position in the market: competing with APS-C/M43 cameras costing half as much, while costing the same as entry-level FF cameras from Sony and Canon.

What changed since 2010:
- APS-C and FF DSLR cameras had to be pretty much the same size to accommodate the mirror and prism assembly, it did not make sense to build two different mounts. Now, with mirrorless, you can have much smaller/lighter/cheaper cameras and lenses if you have a dedicated APS-C/M43 mount.
- There were very few dedicated APS-C lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony, meaning you pretty much had to invest in FF lenses, especially if you wanted Prime lenses. So when you upgraded, you could keep the original lenses. Today, you are probably using dedicated APS-C lenses, since the difference in price size and weight with FF lenses is pretty important, so even if you upgrade to FF, you probably can't keep those lenses.
- When entry-level FF was $3000 and APS-C was $500, it made sense to invest in a system lens by lens, working up to FF. Today, it's $999 and yet still $500 for APS-C: you can just buy into FF if you want to.

tldr: it makes a lot of sense for Canon to keep EF-M (smaller, lighter, cheaper) and RF separate. Nikon is still thinking in a 2010 paradigm and it will fail them: the Z50 cannot compete with its APS-C/M43 rivals.

(07-15-2020, 09:04 AM)photonius Wrote: Well, I suspect that is the same reasoning Canon is using, i.e APS-C only on EOS-M. But the 600 and 800 mm are clearly aimed at low budget customers. Yet, the lenses were not released for EOS-M. As someone mentioned on the other thread on these lenses, they would be useful on APS-C size for maximum reach.

Just a small point. A F11 lens for an APS-C sensor with 32.5 megapixels is just really asking for trouble: you are well past the diffraction limit and buyers will be asking why the pictures are so bad. That said, I imagine we might get an equivalent DO lens for EF-M at some point. If not, maybe the rumored 100-300 mm f5.6-8 will be manageable and affordable.
#14
What's the upgrade path for MFT?
#15
(07-15-2020, 01:08 PM)Spinifex Wrote: "Upgrade path" is an overused concept that doesn't mean as much today as it did back in 2010. Yes, it made sense back when Sony had the E-mount and they managed to (barely) fit a FF sensor in there, but now, it leads to the Nikon Z50, which is in a really poor position in the market: competing with APS-C/M43 cameras costing half as much, while costing the same as entry-level FF cameras from Sony and Canon.

What changed since 2010:
- APS-C and FF DSLR cameras had to be pretty much the same size to accommodate the mirror and prism assembly, it did not make sense to build two different mounts. Now, with mirrorless, you can have much smaller/lighter/cheaper cameras and lenses if you have a dedicated APS-C/M43 mount.
- There were very few dedicated APS-C lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony, meaning you pretty much had to invest in FF lenses, especially if you wanted Prime lenses. So when you upgraded, you could keep the original lenses. Today, you are probably using dedicated APS-C lenses, since the difference in price size and weight with FF lenses is pretty important, so even if you upgrade to FF, you probably can't keep those lenses.
- When entry-level FF was $3000 and APS-C was $500, it made sense to invest in a system lens by lens, working up to FF. Today, it's $999 and yet still $500 for APS-C: you can just buy into FF if you want to.

tldr: it makes a lot of sense for Canon to keep EF-M (smaller, lighter, cheaper) and RF separate. Nikon is still thinking in a 2010 paradigm and it will fail them: the Z50 cannot compete with its APS-C/M43 rivals.

(07-15-2020, 09:04 AM)photonius Wrote: Well, I suspect that is the same reasoning Canon is using, i.e APS-C only on EOS-M. But the 600 and 800 mm are clearly aimed at low budget customers. Yet, the lenses were not released for EOS-M. As someone mentioned on the other thread on these lenses, they would be useful on APS-C size for maximum reach.

Just a small point. A F11 lens for an APS-C sensor with 32.5 megapixels is just really asking for trouble: you are well past the diffraction limit and buyers will be asking why the pictures are so bad. That said, I imagine we might get an equivalent DO lens for EF-M at some point. If not, maybe the rumored 100-300 mm f5.6-8 will be manageable and affordable.
"upgrade path" I was never interested in, I don't need to go to FF. I want a large lens selection on a small compact system. And the EF/EF-S offered this. In fact, when comparing Canon to e.g. Olympus, there was hardly any advantage of MTF over Canon in terms of weight, which counts most, provided one wants a camera with viewfinder.
- The Z50, I don't think that can be used as sample. There is no reason why one can't make a decent inexpensive body with a Z or RF mount and APS-C sensor. It was Nikon's marketing decision to make one which is too expensive. 
- As to size, yes EOS-M can be made a bit smaller. But the RF mount is not that huge, the inner diameter is 54mm, the same as the old EF mount.  And with the EF mount Canon was able to make the small compact SL range dSLRs that compare quite well in terms of weight with mirrorless cameras (e.g., Olympus E-M10 is only 60 g lighter than an SL2). So just imaging you take out the whole mirror box from the SL2, what you save more. So, the difference in mount diameter does not make a huge difference for body design weight differences. The reason some EOS-M and PEN cameras are small, because they strip the viewfinder, large handgrips, etc. You can do that with Z or RF as well, if you want. 
As to f11, yes, I agree we are approaching diffraction. But at 24MP, f11, as the Canon APS-C tests here on OL show, the loss effect is quite minimal, not collapsing at all yet. At f16 it will start to kick in. So, to get there, you need an 60 MP on FF.
#16
If you buy an RF 800/600mm f/11 size isn't so much of an issue for the camera. While these are _comparatively_ small, they are still fairly big lenses in absolute terms.

And it won't be tack sharp on a 24mp APS-C sensor. It may be reasonably sharp.

Also - just to put this into the grand scheme of things - the Olympus 300mm f/4 - while more expensive - will eat those two RF lenses for lunch.
The effective output quality will be higher - and unlike these RF lenses, the Olympus can take full advantage of Dual-IS - while also being an equivalent stop faster.

Of course, the argument won't matter if you own an R camera. However, in this specific cases, the equivalence game fights back.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#17
(07-15-2020, 11:10 PM)Klaus Wrote: If you buy an RF 800/600mm f/11 size isn't so much of an issue for the camera. While these are _comparatively_ small, they are still fairly big lenses in absolute terms.

And it won't be tack sharp on a 24mp APS-C sensor. It may be reasonably sharp.

Also - just to put this into the grand scheme of things - the Olympus 300mm f/4 - while more expensive - will eat those two RF lenses for lunch.
The effective output quality will be higher - and unlike these RF lenses, the Olympus can take full advantage of Dual-IS - while also being an equivalent stop faster.

Of course, the argument won't matter if you own an R camera. However, in this specific cases, the equivalence game fights back.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the price of the Olympus lens you mention. $2790. That is more than both the 600mm and 800mm lenses. Of course, the Olympus needs an 1.4x TC to compare to the 800mm lens. That adds $349, coming to $3129. So that now 840mm f11 lens will eat that Canon 800mm f11 lens for lunch? For a mere $2229 more? And of course it is not a stop faster than the Canon 800mm f11...
#18
(07-16-2020, 06:30 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(07-15-2020, 11:10 PM)Klaus Wrote: If you buy an RF 800/600mm f/11 size isn't so much of an issue for the camera. While these are _comparatively_ small, they are still fairly big lenses in absolute terms.

And it won't be tack sharp on a 24mp APS-C sensor. It may be reasonably sharp.

Also - just to put this into the grand scheme of things - the Olympus 300mm f/4 - while more expensive - will eat those two RF lenses for lunch.
The effective output quality will be higher - and unlike these RF lenses, the Olympus can take full advantage of Dual-IS - while also being an equivalent stop faster.

Of course, the argument won't matter if you own an R camera. However, in this specific cases, the equivalence game fights back.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the price of the Olympus lens you mention. $2790. That is more than both the 600mm and 800mm lenses. Of course, the Olympus  needs an 1.4x TC to compare to the 800mm lens. That adds $349, coming to $3129. So that now 840mm f11 lens will eat that Canon 800mm f11 lens for lunch? For a mere $2229 more? And of course it is not a stop faster than the Canon 800mm f11...

actually, f4 plus the 1.4x TC should be f5.6., or not? Or I guess you included the equivalence? (f4 => f8, plus 1 stop for TC).  And anyway, if the 800mm was available on an APS-C camera, the factor to MFT is only 1.25 (not 2), so the 300 is a 375mm, you'd have to add the 2x teleconverter to get close. I guess Klaus has to do a comparison ;-) I hope he has a 50 meter room, or whatever is needed ;-) 

In an utopian world, one has a FF sensor with high pixel density (diffraction limited). You put any lens in front of it, even MFT, or EF-S, and the pixel density is high enough to capture the best picture. However, the FF sensors will remain more expensive than smaller sensors for a while, as far as I can see.
I had once the crazy idea, to have a body with two sensors. A normal, say 20Mp FF sensor, but then you can flip in a mirror that redirects the central portion of the image onto another smaller sensor (say 1 inch) with higher pixel density for the long reach images. While weird, I guess it would have been less weird than the Ricoh GXR...
#19
Canon rumours has a rumor that a new high end APS-C camera is coming... So, now we can bet if it is RF or EF-M...
#20
Canon is relaesing a peedbooster ...
https://www.canonrumors.com/new-adapters...mount-cr2/
while it makes more sense to make it for EOS M
if it is RF only that means Canon don't care anymore for EOS-M
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)