Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Canon decided to go RF mount instead of FF EF-M.
#11
EF-S bodies outsell EF bodies. Why exactly is EF-M a dead end?
Canon will do EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF as long as they sell.
#12
(12-18-2018, 10:28 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: EF-S bodies outsell EF bodies. Why exactly is EF-M a dead end?
Canon will do EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF as long as they sell.
BC represents the situation in the Netherlands objectively
1. Independent websites show it
2. Go to Zoo or museum and you will see many EOS-Ms
ps: I'm not big fan of EOS-M
#13
Boy, someone has to read whole sentences before jumping straight to the response... Let me single out a part of my post to make it a little bit clearer:

(if only by switching all of the forward development elsewhere [...])
Indeed, how many lenses have been released for EOS M? I think less than 10 and only two/three that stand out. I expect the system to hang on for quite some time without much development.
#14
(12-18-2018, 10:28 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: EF-S bodies outsell EF bodies. Why exactly is EF-M a dead end?
Canon will do EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF as long as they sell.

I meant by dead end that it's not like EFs where users buy full frame lenses because they will update to full frame later on, they start with a cheap entry level body and end up with a full frame body with a set of lenses in a few years.
switching from EFM to RF is almost the same as switching from canon to Sony from a lenses perspective,  APS-C RF  is a good option especially RF will sound more professional for new users since there are pro products in the same line , although whethere it's named EFM or RF it's ths same camera with a different mount.

As I said I am not a canon executive and it's up to them to decide not to me, unless they do read this forum..
#15
This forum is of course one of the most influential and powerful sites in the universe........

     we have the ability to change the world........

      You know, Nikon listens to every word I say!.


    and no doubt that Canon hangs on your every word too.......toni-a
Dave's clichés
#16
We practically rule the photographic world, so to say, and the leaders of the industry are are unconditionally subject to our will. Big Grin

Couldn't have put it better, dave.
#17
An interesting perspective and as expressed quite logical but and it is a big but, I don't think it matters too much because neither Canon nor for that matter Nikon have the same the same market circumstances as Sony. Both Canon and Nikon have an established user base who have invested heavily in their ranges of high quality glass, protecting their investment was esential as both launched mirrorless products that compete with the Sony A9, A7 ranges, the Canon M series just isn't in this market sector.

I shoot Canon DSLRs and have a collection of Canon L series glass, this is my "go to gear" for photography but I also have a M6 and four M series lenses (4 out of 5 available !) as a lightweight travel system. Although I can with the adapter mount my EF lenses on the M6, it is not ergonomically a thing I do, even a 70-200 lens is frankly ridiculous on a M body so leaving the M series out of the loop is hardly important. One of the arguments that has often been made as an advantage for the Sony A series is the lighter body weight but I've never bought into that because high quality lenses will always be the size/weight determining factor whoever the manufacturer is mybkexperience.


Bottom line, as a M series user, I do not see this systems exclusion going forward as a negative, I want it to remain as a physically small/light package, including the lenses and not cripple the R series at birth.
#18
I think mechanical strength plays a factor as well. Imagine coupling a 500/4 to a pro-series MILC, a future 1D-R or whatever. A 54 mm wide mount will be much stronger than a 35 mm wide mount.

EF-M was designed for lightweight little cameras. EF and R are for big and heavy pro gear.

Canon's R-mount is brilliant for its backward compatibility with EF glass. It'll be interesting to see if Canon puts out an R-mount APSC-sensor camera. If so I could mount my EF-S lenses as well as my EF lenses (with EF converter), as well as R-mount full-frame glass and possible future R-mount APSC glass. It'd be the universal camera on which you could mount just about anything. I see people speculating about an R-mount APSC camera at Canonrumors.

I really enjoyed Klaus' review of the new 50/1.2. To me the big leap forward here is the lack of (or much reduced) clipping of the bokeh balls. I imagine the lack of a mirror box and the wide throat diameter are to be thanked for this. I imagine that larger rear elements, as allowed by the R-mount rather than the M-mount, has its advantages for fast lenses.

Now, what is the future of EF-M? I have no clue. But R is a brilliant move by Canon. Hopefully the power consumption of the viewfinder will be reduced as the R line evolves.
#19
(01-17-2019, 09:19 PM)backcountryskier Wrote: I think mechanical strength plays a factor as well.  Imagine coupling a 500/4 to a pro-series MILC, a future 1D-R or whatever.  A 54 mm wide mount will be much stronger than a 35 mm wide mount.  

EF-M was designed for lightweight little cameras.  EF and R are for big and heavy pro gear.

Canon's R-mount is brilliant for its backward compatibility with EF glass.  It'll be interesting to see if Canon puts out an R-mount APSC-sensor camera.  If so I could mount my EF-S lenses as well as my EF lenses (with EF converter), as well as R-mount full-frame glass and possible future R-mount APSC glass.  It'd be the universal camera on which you could mount just about anything.  I see people speculating about an R-mount APSC camera at Canonrumors.

I really enjoyed Klaus' review of the new 50/1.2.  To me the big leap forward here is the lack of (or much reduced) clipping of the bokeh balls.  I imagine the lack of a mirror box and the wide throat diameter are to be thanked for this.  I imagine that larger rear elements, as allowed by the R-mount rather than the M-mount, has its advantages for fast lenses.

Now, what is the future of EF-M?  I have no clue.  But R is a brilliant move by Canon.  Hopefully the power consumption of the viewfinder will be reduced as the R line evolves.
Where to begin...

With big and heavy lenses, you hold the lens. EOS-M has a 47mm throat diameter, not 35mm "wide mount". The EOS-M mount plates have a 57mm diameter.

"Canon's M-mount is brilliant for its backward compatibility with EF glass".

Canon is NOT planning EOS-R APS-C cameras. 

The Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L USM heavily clips bokeh balls. 
[Image: cats_f12.jpg]
Just look at how much is clipped at the edges, and even a bit from the center.
Worse than the EF 50mm f1.2 L USM.
In fact, the RF 50mm f1.2 L USM has about the same cats eye bokeh clipping as my (the) Canon FL 55mm f1.2:
[Image: BFB0704FFC3443479F28095E725FD843.jpg]
And that FL/FD mount has a throat diameter of 48mm.

The only thing that is better concerning bokeh ball clipping, is that the mirror box does not clip tops or bottoms. Because there is no mirror box.

EF and RF lens mounts have the exact same throat diameter. The difference is the flange distance (20mm for RF, 44mm for EF).

Apparently, the large back element has NO advantage for the bokeh, at all. The big diameter does give freedom for lens design, Canon used it to keep the lens size and weight low, while giving very high performance.

The future of EF-M is clear. As long people keep buying APS-C EOS M, Canon will continue the line. And EOS M does not sell badly at all, especially in Japan. Same goes for EF and EF-S.
#20
(Yesterday, 12:22 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: Canon is NOT planning EOS-R APS-C cameras. 

Not sure about that, I am not a canon executive to give a verdict about that though.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)