Canon’s future RF bodies

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,154
Re: EF-M vs RF crop

Steve Balcombe wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

lawny13 wrote:

4. I really don't get why people are offended by the EF-M line.

Ok so let's say I'm a long lens photographer who wants to move to crop mirrorless - not full frame mirrorless, because the overall crop sensor package including lenses is a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper than the full frame equivalent.

And let's say there's a choice is between a high-end body with an EF-M mount and exactly the same high end crop body with an RF mount. The size, control placement etc., are almost entirely dictated by the ergonomics, not the choice of mount, so that could literally be the only difference. The cost should be identical.

For some time I'll be using EF lenses because (a) I already have them, and/or (b) it will be a long time before Canon offers a full range of native mount long lenses. So we fit an adapter to each body, and they now become for all practical purposes indistinguishable EF-mount mirrorless crop bodies. So which do I choose?

What's your answer and why?

They will not be the same price.

a. The RF mount camera would likely be more rugged since it has a more robust lens. Canon literally stated this was the reason for the RF mount flange distance. As an optical mechanical engineer, I agree with them.

How will you ever pass the exam if you don't read the question? I am asking about two bodies made for exactly the same high-end, rufty-tufty outdoor stuff. They will beequally rugged because that is the question I'm asking. (Unless of course you are already conceding that the EF-M mount is not suitable? And there was me giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

b. The RF mount has the high speed communications built in making it already more expensive. And canon will differentiate here. The RF cameras are already bigger. So dual cards, bigger better EVF, perhaps IBIS. It is not exactly like them to confuse users by giving you two exactly the same products with different mounts. EF-M for enthusiasts, even with better pro built like weather sealing. But RF for pros (dual cards, better battery life, built more like a tank, and more expensive things like the EVF). Think 3 mil dot EVF in the EF-M compared to 5 mil one in the RF crop. Etc. Think 1DX like AF back button vs regular joystick.

I'm not suggesting that Canon would actually offer these two bodies. Of course they wouldn't, because EF-M is clearly inferior. This is a thought exercise to determine which the wildlife/great outdoors photographer would want.

c. The EF-M mount allows for a smaller camera compared to the RF mount diameter.

We don't a smaller body!!

That said...

1. EF-M

a. If I intend to use the camera as an all a rounder, I would pick the EF-M body. It will allow me to pick up a 50mm equivalent prime and it would be a great every day camera. Some might prefer it with a 35mm or other FL equivalent lens.

b. Some people really never intend to go FF. So if the EF-M has the long glass I need, I would swap out EF lenses over time for EF-M.

But surely that is never going to happen? There are no EF-S long lenses, and nothing from any other manufacturer to suggest it would be worth making any.

2. RF-crop.

a. Some people are simply hardcore wild life photographers. They go out hikes and trips that are not simply the woods close to home, or close to their cities. These types of people will essentially be on safari and the like. As such many of them consider having both FF and crop. FF for landscaping, and other such things while their crop bodies are on a tripod waiting for wildlife. For them going RF would make most sense. A consolidated mount with 2 different sensor formats.


b. Some don't need a everyday camera. They are perfectly fine with their phones. Their cameras go with them when they have a purpose to use it, and in those cases rarely mind a camera that is a bit bigger. So here again RF.


3. Argument for high end EF-M.

You describe your situation. And it is a valid one.

Not exactly - I'm describing a hypothetical situation which I happen to know a lot about

But I would point this out. Some people started off on a mount that is not EF or EF-S. Some people bought directly into EF-M. As their photography goes, and they might venture into long glass photography, they might want to have that higher end option. Rather than having to dump it for a FF RF system that costs an arm and a leg. They would already have thee EF-M glass, and would already like the small form factor. Tons of money, loss or reach, and more weight/bulk. Even with a RF-crop, dumping a whole system for it and the RF cost might be too much to swallow. The only reason to do this would be to go FF in the first place.

Well, if you're basically saying high end EF-M is for people who have become trapped in the EF-M ecosystem (such as it is), then I can't disagree.

4. Argument for a crop RF mount. Same as (3) except I bought straight into RF mount. I might want a consolidated mount (like in point (2)). I don't want to double FLs, but I might want more reach without cropping in my 3.5k R5 camera (though I would since I am not made of money). But an RF crop would make sense. But in this case it would only be for wildlife/sports/birding, because the FF camera would essentially be better in every other way. Or perhaps I am one of those who would travel with both.

Point is, consider need/want, budgets, and other things like size, and starting point, it would be good to have options. But canon needs to balance things out. FF first, then see where demand it and meet it. I think there will be a crop RF. But honestly, I don't really see why they would necessarily do that now. RF FF is still significantly incomplete. Not even the camera body line up is there or clear yet. If they make a crop body it would introduce more confusion (maybe) and canon isn't a company that seems to like doing that. They make the choices segmented, clear/easy. They say the 7D line is the poor man's 1DX. If this is really true... it would be weird to introduce a poor man's R5 camera before the R5 is out and established. A poor man's R5 line would essentially hinder the R5 adoption. Once sales for it drops, then maybe we will see a R5-crop.

Remember where we were coming from:

lawny13 wrote:

4. I really don't get why people are offended by the EF-M line.

It's because the RF mount is better for everything except smallness, and for many high-end crop use cases, smallness is not a benefit.

Part of the thought experiment is... what will canon do in light of the fact that they have an EF-M mount offering a crop format and the new and shiny RF mount in FF format without any possibility of interchanging lenses between them?

We all know essentially what the ideal would if we can go back and redo the whole thing, but that isn't the reality of it. There is a massive amount of people on EF-M, and I think it is reasonable to assume that a lot of them have no interest in the upgrade path to FF, but some might be interested in doing some higher end photography requiring a more rugged system.

My comment about ruggedness for example is about what is rugged enough. The M6II is not there, but it can be at the level of ruggedness of the A9 line for example, considering the flange mechanically. In saying that a RF crop would be more rugged is kinda like comparing the 1DX line to the 5D line in terms of ruggedness. You can't tell me that the 5D is not rugged enough, but it simply is not on the level of the 1DX.

So offer enthusiasts a "rugged" EF-M body that allows them to go on their hikes and camping and trips etc, which is weather sealed and can take some punishment over time. While pros, who are running around day in and day out really working their camera systems might need something more bullet proof. Like you toss your camera and lens on the ground as you switch to your other body at a football event. Or going for trips in very challenging environmental conditions, such as the artic for months, rain forests, desserts, and not just on a visit, but constantly, as in those people work often in those environments, etc. You know the situations where someone wouldn't complain about size and weight even though every kg matters, because they value ruggedness over all.

Anyway. I think it is a matter of perspective. You say users that have become "trapped" in the EF-M system. Sorry but that is just negative thinking since before the RF existed this notion of being "trapped" did not exist. Funny how when we are given more options what we had suddenly seems like a major drag. Very very 1st world problem there. Nothing keeps those people essentially from dumping their EF-M systems and going RF crop if that becomes available, though I am sure they would complain over the added cost, and the bulkier system. The flange diameter alone will ensure that the lenses are that much wider at the mounting points.

Regarding the EF-S and EF lenses comment... again, perspective. With the EF mount canon basically didn't make pro EF-S glass because you can buy the EF glass and mount to your crop sensor camera. That option is not existent at all when talking EF-M and RF mount. So, if they do bring out a more pro-oriented EF-M body, it is likely they will throw those users a bone and provide at least a couple of pro level (or semi-pro) level lenses. Else they might not bother at all. In fact it might even make more sense for canon to only do pro crop RF bodies and not at all for EF-M. So you even do small, light, budget crop through the EF-M system or if you want to pay for it go more pro oriented RF. After all there are lots of companies that do that, a pro set of product lines and a non-pro line. Yet again... options.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow