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?

The mounts and their protocols already are here. There is no engineering involved in them after their introduction...

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.

That is totally incorrect. The EOS M (and M2) was (were) totally from the DSLR team, that was very clear. The same firmware style/layout and functionality as the EOS SL1/100D and others. Only the M3 all of a sudden had a PowerShot style interface.

Ask the following questions:

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

Over the RF it offers a small mount diameter, making small lenses possible. Over EF/EF-S it offers a small mount (making small diameter lenses possible) and a shorter flange distance (making smaller lenses possible).

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

Nothing, the plus for EOS M (and APS-C) is... size. Small size.

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.

Uhmm... Are you saying that what is "bad for the customer" is good for Canon? That is pretty... weird?