Comparison: RF vs EF-M

Below is a 50mm RF lens compared to a 51mm-equivalent EF-M lens.

M = Compact, affordable, lenses.

R = Huge, expensive, premium, lenses.

These are two separate and distinct systems, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

...Canon needs to keep it's M line going. A substantially difference, wouldn't you say!!!

I remember when one of the main talking points about adopting the mirrorless system in general was the size factor. But look at where everybody is heading now - back up to DSLR size (yet with the mirrors missing - go figure). Nope - the EOS M system is just fine for me (and I'm sure for others).

justmeMN said:

Below is a 50mm RF lens compared to a 51mm-equivalent EF-M lens.

M = Compact, affordable, lenses.

R = Huge, expensive, premium, lenses.

These are two separate and distinct systems, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

one more



I am another one who is very satisfied with EOS Ms and their compact lenses.

Your comparison assumes that the RF mount will never include smaller and/or cheaper lenses and bodies and it will only be a lineup of $3000 halo lenses. The RF system is going to evolve and expand to replace everything from the EF-S mount Rebel to the EF mount 1DX.

There are significant technical and institutional limitations that prevent the M system from moving upscale beyond the current M5 level. There is absolutely nothing preventing a compact $300 RF mount camera kit.

nnowak said:

Your comparison assumes that the RF mount will never include smaller and/or cheaper lenses and bodies and it will only be a lineup of $3000 halo lenses.

Click to expand...

My comparison is about lenses that actually exist.

justmeMN said:

nnowak said:

Your comparison assumes that the RF mount will never include smaller and/or cheaper lenses and bodies and it will only be a lineup of $3000 halo lenses.

Click to expand...

My comparison is about lenses that actually exist.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, it is interesting that EFM 32mm is $479 while RF 35mm is $499. EFM is brighter, but RF has IS. I wonder how much RF 50mm 1.4 would be if it provided the same quality as EFM 32mm.

justmeMN said:

nnowak said:

Your comparison assumes that the RF mount will never include smaller and/or cheaper lenses and bodies and it will only be a lineup of $3000 halo lenses.

Click to expand...

My comparison is about lenses that actually exist.

Click to expand...

Your comparison is of two lenses that are not remotely equivalent in a failed attempt to justify your claim that "R = Huge, expensive, premium, lenses". You conveniently ignore the RF 35mm f1.8 IS that is quite compact and inexpensive.

And yet the R body alone costs $2299. That is a wee bit above any M body.

As for the R system replacing EF-S, etc., I'm not so sure. There have been full frame cameras for years and they didn't cause the elimination of APS-C crop sensor cameras.

Different cameras for different uses/budgets in my opinion.

At the end of the day the R system is ultimately a replacement for full frame DSLRS.

I could be wrong but that seems logical to me

mvrbnsn said:

And yet the R body alone costs $2299. That is a wee bit above any M body.

As for the R system replacing EF-S, etc., I'm not so sure. There have been full frame cameras for years and they didn't cause the elimination of APS-C crop sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

EF-S will be eliminated. APS-C won't. Just because the first R camera is full frame does not mean there will not also be crop sensor RF mount bodies in the future.

mvrbnsn said:

Different cameras for different uses/budgets in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And they will all have an RF mount

mvrbnsn said:

At the end of the day the R system is ultimately a replacement for full frame DSLRS.

Click to expand...

And crop sensor DSLRs when Canon starts putting crop sensors in RF mount bodies.

mvrbnsn said:

I could be wrong but that seems logical to me

Click to expand...

Your logic is ignoring all of the potential mount and sensor combinations. It will take a few years, but EF-S, EF-M and EF will all be dead. With both full frame and crop sensors, the RF mount can replace all of these other systems.

nnowak said:

mvrbnsn said:

And yet the R body alone costs $2299. That is a wee bit above any M body.

As for the R system replacing EF-S, etc., I'm not so sure. There have been full frame cameras for years and they didn't cause the elimination of APS-C crop sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

EF-S will be eliminated. APS-C won't. Just because the first R camera is full frame does not mean there will not also be crop sensor RF mount bodies in the future.

nnowak said:

Different cameras for different uses/budgets in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And they will all have an RF mount

nnowak said:

At the end of the day the R system is ultimately a replacement for full frame DSLRS.

Click to expand...

And crop sensor DSLRs when Canon starts putting crop sensors in RF mount bodies.

nnowak said:

I could be wrong but that seems logical to me

Click to expand...

Your logic is ignoring all of the potential mount and sensor combinations. It will take a few years, but EF-S, EF-M and EF will all be dead. With both full frame and crop sensors, the RF mount can replace all of these other systems.

Click to expand...

IMO, it is certain that EFM 15-45mm will be renewed again.

However, it is very interesting to see which mount the replacements for EF-S lenses, such as 15-85 and 17-55, will use.

lumenite said:

nnowak said:

mvrbnsn said:

And yet the R body alone costs $2299. That is a wee bit above any M body.

As for the R system replacing EF-S, etc., I'm not so sure. There have been full frame cameras for years and they didn't cause the elimination of APS-C crop sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

EF-S will be eliminated. APS-C won't. Just because the first R camera is full frame does not mean there will not also be crop sensor RF mount bodies in the future.

lumenite said:

Different cameras for different uses/budgets in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And they will all have an RF mount

lumenite said:

At the end of the day the R system is ultimately a replacement for full frame DSLRS.

Click to expand...

And crop sensor DSLRs when Canon starts putting crop sensors in RF mount bodies.

lumenite said:

I could be wrong but that seems logical to me

Click to expand...

Your logic is ignoring all of the potential mount and sensor combinations. It will take a few years, but EF-S, EF-M and EF will all be dead. With both full frame and crop sensors, the RF mount can replace all of these other systems.

Click to expand...

IMO, it is certain that EFM 15-45mm will be renewed again.

Click to expand...

Why would you say that? If there is another standard zoom in EF-M mount, it will likely be an alternative to the 15-45mm, not a replacement for the 15-45mm

lumenite said:

However, it is very interesting to see which mount the replacements for EF-S lenses, such as 15-85 and 17-55, will use.

Click to expand...

A 15-85mm could show up for EF-M and RF mount, though the aperture ranges would likely be quite different. A new 17-55mm would be RF mount only. Canon won't stray from the 61mm outer diameter for EF-M lenses. That limit precludes the possibility of a fast zoom.

You may well be right, it will surely be interesting to see. I recall some years ago a now retired photographer told me that mirrorless would be the future but that it would take a long time to mature. He was surely right and we are beginning to see it occur.

justmeMN said:

Below is a 50mm RF lens compared to a 51mm-equivalent EF-M lens.

M = Compact, affordable, lenses.

R = Huge, expensive, premium, lenses.

These are two separate and distinct systems, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

Just add to your post...
The EOS R is a VERY good camera and system. It's a beautiful looking camera too. There are times when a photographer wants the benefits of a Full Frame sensor although the benefits that come to mind are those associated with less noise with high ISO and more prominent (and beautiful) bokeh. The small scale of the EOS R and the benefits of the new lenses make it attractive to many photographers who need that edge.
.
But the EOS M comes very close as the APS-C alternative. And if you want to throw in a little Noise Reducing during processing you're going to be able to produce very similar looking results and performance in most applications of the M-system. There's always an exception where a FF system can perform better or you might find your clients want to see a larger bodied camera with a FF sensor in your hands.
.
But the comparison above (which is accurate IMO) shows the massive difference between the two system in scale but gives no hint of the noticeable weight difference. Also, if you add the lens hood to the R you'll get even more length... that lens hood is quite large. At least with the 32mm lens on the M camera, we can add a smaller variant. .
I often shoot side-by-side with a FF and APS-C and in daylight there's little or no difference. But in lowlight there's a distinct edge for Full Frame.... yet with the right lens on the EOS M that difference is becoming quite thin.



--
Regards,
Marco Nero.

There is nothing in the M system that can't be duplicated in the R system if Canon chooses to do so. I don't see the substance in thinking that the first R camera body and the first four lenses can be extrapolated to say the R system will only have FF cameras and big, heavy, expensive lenses. It makes little sense for Canon to perpetually offer two incompatible MILC systems. The fact that Canon rolled out 50% of the number of EF-M lenses ever made at the launch of the R system is telling.

There are other indicators that APS-C will be coming to the R system. Will the MILC replacement of the 7D2, and there will be a replacement, be an M camera or an R camera? What system will have the native lenses to support a high profile sports oriented camera that needs L quality glass with hyper fast AF ability? IMO, the RF mount will assimilate all other Canon mounts over time. Canon might replicate the EF-S mount as a variant RF mount as this has allowed Canon to make small, affordable, decent quality APS-C lenses for their APS-C DSLR camera line. Duplicating the EF model in the RF system makes sense because this strategy allowed Canon to be the undisputed leader in the DSLR market for many years.

MikeJ9116 said:

There is nothing in the M system that can't be duplicated in the R system if Canon chooses to do so. I don't see the substance in thinking that the first R camera body and the first four lenses can be extrapolated to say the R system will only have FF cameras and big, heavy, expensive lenses. It makes little sense for Canon to perpetually offer two incompatible MILC systems. The fact that Canon rolled out 50% of the number of EF-M lenses ever made at the launch of the R system is telling.

There are other indicators that APS-C will be coming to the R system. Will the MILC replacement of the 7D2, and there will be a replacement, be an M camera or an R camera? What system will have the native lenses to support a high profile sports oriented camera that needs L quality glass with hyper fast AF ability? IMO, the RF mount will assimilate all other Canon mounts over time. Canon might replicate the EF-S mount as a variant RF mount as this has allowed Canon to make small, affordable, decent quality APS-C lenses for their APS-C DSLR camera line. Duplicating the EF model in the RF system makes sense because this strategy allowed Canon to be the undisputed leader in the DSLR market for many years.

Click to expand...

Sorry Mike but the only two cameras that ACTUALLY EXIST in this thread are the EOS R and the EOS M platforms. You folks need to stop imagining that there's a pallet of products out there which in reality haven't seen the light of day. Armchair Photographers will forever bleat about the models that are "yet to come" or that the manufacturer "will surely make".
.
I see no reason at all for these IMAGINARY wish-list products to be listed (or even suggested) in a thread that is simply comparing the R to the M for scale, weight, price and utility.

nnowak said:

justmeMN said:

nnowak said:

Your comparison assumes that the RF mount will never include smaller and/or cheaper lenses and bodies and it will only be a lineup of $3000 halo lenses.

Click to expand...

My comparison is about lenses that actually exist.

Click to expand...

Your comparison is of two lenses that are not remotely equivalent in a failed attempt to justify your claim that "R = Huge, expensive, premium, lenses". You conveniently ignore the RF 35mm f1.8 IS that is quite compact and inexpensive.

Click to expand...

But the closest equivalent M lens to the RF35 in terms of FOV and speed is the 22mm f2 - still cheaper and more compact. The EF-M 32 and RF 50 are obvious comparisons in FOV and speed across the 2 systems - it's ridiculous to say they're not remotely equivalent, they perform identical functions across the 2 systems - a fast standard/normal lens - the differences exactly prove the point being made.

Of course there will be more relatively small and cheaper RF lenses, and there may be more slightly bigger and slightly dearer EF-M lenses, but it's patently obvious that EF-M lenses will be generally smaller and cheaper, and that the more spectacular lenses will be RF. That's the fundamental difference between the two systems. M is all about respectable performance in a pretty tiny package. R is a totally different set of compromises- more about performance than size. There's not a huge amount of overlap.

Yep. Going forward, both the EOS-M and the EOS R will be supported by Canon.

As with DSLR's, Canon will be supporting all market segments for their MILC offerings:

1. Consumer/amateur segment - Rebel, xxxD

2. Prosumer segment - xxD, 6D and 7D (Overlapping segment with APS-C and FF bodies)

3. Professional segment - 5Dxx, 1D

The prosumer segment will served by both the EOS-M (APS-C size) and the ESO-R (FF size).

Marco Nero said:

MikeJ9116 said:

There is nothing in the M system that can't be duplicated in the R system if Canon chooses to do so. I don't see the substance in thinking that the first R camera body and the first four lenses can be extrapolated to say the R system will only have FF cameras and big, heavy, expensive lenses. It makes little sense for Canon to perpetually offer two incompatible MILC systems. The fact that Canon rolled out 50% of the number of EF-M lenses ever made at the launch of the R system is telling.

There are other indicators that APS-C will be coming to the R system. Will the MILC replacement of the 7D2, and there will be a replacement, be an M camera or an R camera? What system will have the native lenses to support a high profile sports oriented camera that needs L quality glass with hyper fast AF ability? IMO, the RF mount will assimilate all other Canon mounts over time. Canon might replicate the EF-S mount as a variant RF mount as this has allowed Canon to make small, affordable, decent quality APS-C lenses for their APS-C DSLR camera line. Duplicating the EF model in the RF system makes sense because this strategy allowed Canon to be the undisputed leader in the DSLR market for many years.

Click to expand...

Sorry Mike but the only two cameras that ACTUALLY EXIST in this thread are the EOS R and the EOS M platforms. You folks need to stop imagining that there's a pallet of products out there which in reality haven't seen the light of day. Armchair Photographers will forever bleat about the models that are "yet to come" or that the manufacturer "will surely make".

Click to expand...

The R and the four RF lenses have been out for two months. How many R lenses and camera bodies will be available in five years time? The M system has had eight cameras in six years. At launch, the R system already has 50% of the number of all the EF-M lenses ever made. To assume the R system will grow as slowly as the M system has is not a good assumption, IMO.

Marco Nero said:

I see no reason at all for these IMAGINARY wish-list products to be listed (or even suggested) in a thread that is simply comparing the R to the M for scale, weight, price and utility.

Click to expand...

What keeps Canon from offering small, lightweight cameras and lenses with a RF mount? There isn't any engineering constraints keeping them from doing it.

I am curious to hear what you think an APS-C RF mount camera means to the long term viability of the M system.

david01234 said:

Yep. Going forward, both the EOS-M and the EOS R will be supported by Canon.

As with DSLR's, Canon will be supporting all market segments for their MILC offerings:

1. Consumer/amateur segment - Rebel, xxxD

2. Prosumer segment - xxD, 6D and 7D (Overlapping segment with APS-C and FF bodies)

3. Professional segment - 5Dxx, 1D

The prosumer segment will served by both the EOS-M (APS-C size) and the ESO-R (FF size).

Click to expand...

Where does Canon put a MILC successor to the 7D2? Would it go to the R or M system?

MikeJ9116 said:

The R and the four RF lenses have been out for two months. How many R lenses and camera bodies will be available in five years time? The M system has had eight cameras in six years. At launch, the R system already has 50% of the number of all the EF-M lenses ever made. To assume the R system will grow as slowly as the M system has is not a good assumption, IMO.

Click to expand...

Mike,

Even if you are correct, which you probably will be, that in the future there will be many more RF lenses than M mounts, remember that there being many more EF lenses than EF-S ones didn't stop Canon APS-C cameras far outselling FF ones.

It's far from everyone who buys APS-C who go on to buy a whole range of additional lenses, or any at all.