Canon’s future RF bodies

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
lawny13 Senior Member • Posts: 2,162
Re: EF-M vs RF crop

rrc1967 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Trapped.... might be the wrong word. Nevertheless, when upgrading from M to RF your M-lenses can't be used on the new camera.

so what?

why on earth would I want to?

Because it can save you some money.

no it can't. it would be completely useless downgrading a 45MP camera to a 17MP camera. Why the hell would I do that instead of using the 32MP native camera? There's no purpose at all to that. you may as well stick with the smaller EOS-M camera if that's the case.

No one in their right mind is going to spend 2K+ into a full frame system and then gimp the living daylights out of it.

Furthermore you can still use your M camera as a backup body for your R while not having to carry extra lenses.

the larger RF lenses would be an ergonomic nightmare on a smaller M. Not to mention it's not a practical backup because of focal length changes. Get an RP.

Just face it. they are separate, and odds are Canon will never create a new APS-C line again. This is such a tired argument, and I should know - I was the first to write up about it before the RF mount was even formally announced.

It should be stated that I haven't found an APS-C lens patent application in a while now.

They have completely dried up. That should tell you something.

I was just in the cleanroom at work. And i was using the original EOS M + 18-55 kit, and the 26mm macro to make some pictures of a test setup we have in there.

I own the R. And boy are the two completely different when it comes to size. The height of the EOS M is just 2 mm or so more than the diameter of the lens mount (outer portion of it). With the RF mount the camera body would automatically grow. Handling the EOS M makes me want an EF-M camera for an every day and on the go camera. It is diminutive.

So I take back my previous comments. The EF-M definitely has a point, and those who say it should be killed off just haven't used it. It is something I see my wife, my kids, and other people not craving for the top of the line performance to have. When I place the RF 24-105 on a table in a cafe I am aware of its size because I can feel that others are. When the EF-M no one would bat an eye. It is the camera that comes out of the bag and stays on you casually when on the go.

So even if canon decides to come out with an RF crop, the EF-M has its place. I still think canon should provide something like an EF-M 100-400, simply because it would definitely be smaller, lighter and cheaper (the 18-55 is tiny compared to a 24-70). I also think they should improve the quality of their glass for the EF-M since they have that high MP sensor in the M6II.

With that... I don't really know or have an opinion with regard to what they should or should not do. The EF-M is a fine crop sensor system, and the RF is a fine FF system. But as is it does leave the 7D type people out in the wind. I do believe that providing a 7D line expereince in EF-M is less disruptive (to canon and less confusing to buyers) than introducing a RF crop. That way the separation would be clear. EF-M is crop, and RF is FF. This is similar in thought for example as MF and Crop systems like fuji. No reason for a X-T3 level EF-M body if you ask me. It also keep the lens line up tidy and clean.

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