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

Rock and Rollei wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Nope, M mount it tainted by all the previous M models. Besides, why in the world would I buy a different mount that there is no reason for? With EF-s there was a reason it was necessary, with M mount there isn’t.

There's an overwhelmingly excellent reason for the EF-M mount - size of lenses. It's absolutely bizarre to deny that. On top of that, it was introduced before the R mount - it made so much more sense than just sticking an EF or EF-S mount on M cameras.
If anything, it's EF-S that there was less reason for - several of the lenses didn't make use of the shorter back focus anyway.

And there is the factor of cost.

Lets say I do want to get into birding. What lenses would people recommend? Something like the EF 100-400 or whatever that maybe on RF mount. Ok... how much would a lens like that cost? How much would the whole setup weigh? An RF 100-400 lens would likely cost around 3k.

if canon came out with an EF-M 100-400 equivalent lens it would likely cost quite a big less. In fact I would bet that for the cost of the FF lens you could probably pick up the body and lens and stil have a package that weighs about the same or less and take just as much room or there about. Sure it would mean another system but I simply wouldn’t invest deep into it. FF for anything serious and EFM with a tele zoom for sports, BIF and wildlife and probably a small fast prime for a light small walk around package.

Not saying that this is for everyone. But if I were to by a lens for birding I would consider a body and lens for the same price or cheaper that is smaller and lighter. ESPECIALLY since canon currently has no mirrorless body that has the speed of the M6II. The 7DII is now to old and owning the R means I am definitely not buying another DSLR.