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

quiquae wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Are you serious? How on earth does the M mount allow for a smaller lens than RF? It isn’t a case like EF-s where a mirror was going to hit the back of the lens. There is no reason Canon couldn’t make a reduced circle RF mount lens for an APS-c sensor that is the same size as an M mount lens.

In theory, yes, although such lenses would have to have ugly bell-bottoms like contraptions to let an EF-M sized barrel match the RF mount.

In practice, there are other problems, though. When you twist a lens on and off by grabbing the barrel and applying torque, a thicker lens allows you to apply less force (lever effect). Using a thin EF-M barrel on an RF lens means you’d have to twist the lens pretty hard to dislodge it. This is probably not a deal-killer, but it would be jarring and unpleasant enough that Canon may elect to simply make APS-C RF lenses at least as thick as the mount diameter.

Eh... I think that is a bit of a stretch. If you want to use the lever thing as an argument. 
It is linear. So if you have a 1m long lever and need to apply 1kg of force to move it, then for a 2m long lever you would have to apply half the force. With my R I can remove any lens by twisting with just 2 fingers (I use more for stability and don't want to drop the lens) but it is pretty easy. So if the M mount barrel was half the diameter it would take twice the force... but would still be relatively easy.