[Rover]

Probably not the lens that most people would've wanted to see saved, or at least not the only one. Well, at least it remained a 3.5-6.3 (or however much), not made a 5-7.1.

[toni-a]

EOS M was not a failure by any means, it sold quite well, if Canon had prepared themselves for the possibility of having full frame on EOS-M it would be still thriving.
Sony decided to keep a rather small mount and use it on full frame, Canon took another approach saying it will give them advantages in lens design ..

[Rover]

Well, in the end the E-mount is doing quite well, size or no size. I don't remember the details but was the EF-M mount THAT much smaller so it was absolutely impossible to make it use the 36*24 sensor?

[wim]

EOS M was not a failure by any means, it sold quite well, if Canon had prepared themselves for the possibility of having full frame on EOS-M it would be still thriving.
Sony decided to keep a rather small mount and use it on full frame, Canon took another approach saying it will give them advantages in lens design ..

The EOS-M was selling well in Japan mostly, however. With the small size of some of the smaller EOS-R camera's, which have the same flange distance as the EOS-M series, there is no need to have two ranges now. I reckon the EOS-M was a camera to test the waters and to experiment with the possibilities of a pure EVF-camera, but along the way they realized that for economics it would be better to have a single mount for all EVF-based cameras, especially as the EOS-M only sold well in Japan.

---

Well, in the end the E-mount is doing quite well, size or no size. I don't remember the details but was the EF-M mount THAT much smaller so it was absolutely impossible to make it use the 36*24 sensor?

With regard to future possibilities, and make the mount last as long as the EF-mount, I would think the answer must be yes.

Just look at the original Canon-adapters for EF to M, they narrow quite a bit at the M-end, while the EF to R adapters are essentially the same at either end, as the diameter of the effective opening is the same too. However since that opening is much closer to the sensor, it is a lot less restrictive.

In addition there are the additional contacts for further expansion when new technology becomes available, and I am sure that those extra contacts were conceived with specific possibilities and opportunities already in mind.

[Klaus]

I suppose FF was never on the books for EF-M. Looking back, I'd rather see it as a competition for MFT and Nikon 1.
This also explained the miniature size of the EF-M bodies. Technically, it was or could have been superior to MTF/Nikon 1 due to the bigger sensor size.

[wim]

I suppose FF was never on the books for EF-M. Looking back, I'd rather see it as a competition for MFT and Nikon 1.
This also explained the miniature size of the EF-M bodies. Technically, it was or could have been superior to MTF/Nikon 1 due to the bigger sensor size.

Exactly this.

I was considering getting an EF-M system, but I already had and have an extensive MFT system setup, including a bunch of adapters and speedboosters for EF, Leica, Olympus and a bunch of other brands of lenses, and for me the size en lens options including the ones I own was vast, and superior to the EF-M system.

Combining that with the rendering Oly lenses and bodies do, very similar to Canon, why bother and loose a lot of money by switching. So I stuck with it, and am stil happy with Pen-F, EM-II, a bunch of lenses and my speed boosters for EF ....

Basically, for me it was too little, too late, and still too big, for my purposes anyway.