Would you want an APS-C camera with an RF mount?

fstopx2 wrote:

From a business perspective it makes sense to consolidate down to a single lens mount. Why have duplicate everything, it creates additional cost for the business. As an example - the car companies routinely share chassis, engines, electronics, etc.... between models. They avoid creating new anything.

From Canon's perspective whats involved with having duplicate mounts - do you have separate engineering teams or is it the same people doing both mounts? How much resources do have to devote to maintaining separate lines.

I tend to think its the former (separate teams) because the EOS M's from the beginning seem more related to Powershots than DSLRs. Its very obvious the Powershot team had their hand in the design and development.

Ask the following questions:

What does the EOS M line offer over EF/EFS other than size?

What does the EOS M line offer over the RF other than size?

APS-C is all about size. Unilke Sony, Canon made the right decision to not use M-mount for their FF MILCs. There will be a point at which the cost of an entry level FF will not be much higher than that of entry level APS-C. And the size can be as small as a Sony a7 w/o the EVF on top (paired with the Samyang 35/2.8, it is already the smallest high quality FF camera at the lowest price). So why APS-C at all if not for a size/weight advantage? And for that, M-Mount is the best option.

The EOS M diehards will be enraged and will talk about best value, image quality, etc.... The question is not whats good for the consumer, but rather whats good for Canon.