Some thoughts about EOS M, EOS R and Fuji

fstopx2 wrote:

The M/M3 never worked well with EF/EFS lenses and I had the native lenses. The native lenses are very tiny compared to EF/EFS.

I realized pretty much immediately that the whole compatibility with EF/EFS is somewhat overblown. Yes it is compatible but who wants to stick a gigantic lens on a small camera?

Even now I would only consider some of the primes to put on the camera because most are not that big but the big zooms? No thanks. Even my EFS 15-85 looks stupid on the camera.

Lol, I sometimes use my 70-200 2.8 with my M3. Yes, it looks funny and doesn't seem to spin the lens as fast as a DSLR. but it works.

I can't see the RF lenses even for crop sensors being as tiny as whats on the M.

They could not be. The mount alone would make the camera bigger.

I think people are underestimating the desire of people for small cameras. Its not just the fact that they are mirrorless. The overall size is a big driver because most people don't want to carry a DSLR sized camera.

That is the main reason I bought a compact mirrorless. I chose the M because it also uses my current lenses. Most of the time, however, I use the native lenses. If I used telephoto more, I'd buy a longer native lens.

I think its two or three market segments:

RF - full frame - full size bodies and lenses.

RF - APSC - smaller than full size bodies and lenses

M - APSC - tiny bodies and lenses.

There really is no reason that Canon couldnt have three lines. They love to do market segmentation anyway. Ever notice how they add/delete features to produce new models. People keep saying about its wasting resources to do this - this is a big multinational company - they can easily have multiple teams.

IMO as long as the M sells they will continue to make it.

I think that is a reasonable interpretation.