Sittatunga wrote:
antonio-salieri wrote:
Karl_Guttag wrote:
tkbslc wrote:
Speaking of reality, I think some people may need to face reality that brand new L lenses and cutting edge FF cameras may not fit in their budget. There's no shame in running a crop system or using older EF lenses or even going with a DSLR. There are plenty of ways to enjoy photography for low cost in 2021. Demanding that a brand new pro FF system be "affordable" is probably not realistic.
It is a different question of whether you are starting out or already have equipment.
- Canon does not have a Mirrorless APS-C in the R mount, and I don't expect them to keep supporting the M-mount for very long. They may not kill the M-mount, but it looks like they will let it die from benign neglect. Even the rumored R7 might have been aimed at the high end for the BIF and similar applications.
- In #1, I am not saying to get out of the M-series, but I would not start into it today as a consumer. That seems to be the consensus of many "influencers" and even if it is not true, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- Per #1 and #2, I think your argument holds better for Sony than Canon.
- The whole APS-C was in a time when a full-frame sensor was ridiculously expensive (I'm guessing $500 to $1000 for the sensor alone). Additionally, the DSLR was beginning, and the Digital camera market was growing by leaps and bounds. The volumes of the APS-C DSLRs could justify independent lens development and thus EF-S lenses. It is not clear to me (and others I have read/listened to) that the market allows crop sensor R lens.
The result is if you have an APS-C Canon DLSR with EF-S lenses and you don't want to spend at least $2,000, you probably need to hang on for a few years. You probably don't want to buy a lot of new equipment other than perhaps a camera and maybe pick up some used lenses.
I lived the APS-C to R changeover myself, having shot APS-C for 20 years. My full-frame lenses were old and obsolete, and I couldn't see using EF-S lenses on the RP or R5. But then I was willing to drop a heck of a lot more than $2K on a bunch of L-lenses (plus the RF24-240). All I got from "staying with Canon" was my familiarity with Canon equipment when all was said and done. Nothing I owned pre-R is in my bag today. I was not going to buy new or used EF lenses for my new camera. On a financial basis, there was no advantage and probably considerable extra cost in staying with Canon.
If you are in the M-series and don't want to speed about $2,000, you just hang tight and see what happens.
From what I see, it is a bit hard for someone to start with Canon today. I'm not talking about someone that already knows many of the EF lenses, but the more average person wanting to get into better photography. To someone shopping today, the Canon DSLR and M lines look like dead ends. With the R-series, why buy into a new system and then use old lenses that you have to adapt?
There's a big difference between wanting to get into better photography and having to have a collection of the latest and greatest. There's an awful lot you can do with an EF-M 11-22mm and an 18-150mm. DSLRs are getting a bit specialist these days. They do some things superbly but, to someone starting out, mirrorless does most things easier and better. The EOS M is a dead-end because it is generalist APS-C, but that still has a place as a discreet, small and inexpensive companion to my EOS R.
Canon is gradually getting "consumer" lenses out there, with the RF100-400 filling one important slot. However, you are still talking needed to speed about $2K to have a nice consumer "kit" (camera, two zooms, and maybe a consumer prime).
I agree and disagree. I also switched from APS-C to FF, switching to mirrorless with the R5. However, I only ever have owned one EF-S lens, the 18-55 kit lens. All my other lenses are either RF or EF (which, although designed for full frame cameras, are perfectly good on APS-C cameras too).
Do I think buying an M-system camera is a good idea? Well, if it's at the right price, I think it's fine. What I would definitely advise, however, is not buying EF-M lenses. Those cameras work fine with EF and EF-S lenses, however, and those will be perfectly good on the R-system cameras, although I'd recommend steering clear of EF-S too if you might upgrade to FF. (There should be no major disadvantage of EF-S on the hypothetical R7, though.)
I would happily buy EOS M again now. To use a motoring analogy; I would love to buy a new Bentayga and take it out on the fells, but my life would be a whole lot better if I bought a Toyota Corolla. (So I compromise, and run a banger, because what I really want is transport. A lot of people just want a decent camera, not a life-consuming hobby or profession.)
APS-C is great for learning about composition, shutter speeds and exposure. It's better than FF for learning about exposure, not as obvious for learning about the effects of aperture.
EOS M's great strength is its size. It's not good for fast lenses because fast zooms are huge, and fast primes have poor price to performance ratios compared with FF, though at least the Canon ones are small and discreet. I've resisted the much-loved EF-M 32mm because it's the FF equivalent of 50mm f/2.2 at double the price of the RF 50mm f/1.8 and four times the price of the EF version. But the 11-22mm is one of my favourite lenses, which I often use rather than my 16-35mm on the EOS R.
As for the R7, I think it's inevitable that it'll come out at some point. The flagship cameras have always been 35mm. The genius of EF-S cameras was that they worked with EF lenses, and that many of the lenses you might buy would then work with your new FF camera, even though the ones specifically made for the crop sensor won't. Of course, with RF, the previous gen crop lenses work now, but the current gen ones won't. I think this is sustainable for now, while the EF line is still pretty dominant, but certainly within a few years I'd expect the R7 and RF-S. The more complicated factor for me is when and how the Rebels would switch to mirrorless. That feels a few years away at least.
That depends entirely on how the DSLRs sell. Canon have EOS M for their mirrorless APS-C system and they can't afford to produce a third APS-C lens system, least of all one that's incompatible with all their current and past APS-C cameras. I don't think it makes sense to price the hypothetical R7 as a Rebel replacement; it should be priced more like the R6 than the RP if it's going to be good enough to do its job properly.
Saying "don't buy EOS M as it's a dead end that Canon might axe at any time" sounds like an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy. Forty-five years ago I bought a second-hand Canon F-1 rather than a new FTbN, secure in the knowledge that it would last all my adult life and well into my dotage. I've still got it and some FD lenses, but look how that turned out. We don't even know what's going to come along in five years' time, so I would advise newcomers to buy only what they need for now and worry about upgrading when the time comes.
It's also entirely possible that the new RF-S bodies will be able to accept EF-M lenses via an adapter, using an even shorter flange distance, but this seems fat from guaranteed especially considering the lack of incentive given the few EF-M lenses that have come out.
No, that's impossible, as EF-M lenses clash with the RF contacts. An optical solution would be so like a teleconverter that the slow EF-M lenses would end up a stop or two slower, and so much longer that it would be cheaper and easier to use RF lenses instead. Canon would have to put the RF mount, contacts and all onto a new and separate bayonet and supply an EF-M mount adapter, contacts and all, to the same bayonet. That would be horrendous, both for price and utility.
TL;DR: buy an M-system camera if you want, but use it with the lenses that will still work on future R-system cameras. Just my two cents.
Or buy EF-M lenses for their size, performance and price and accept that, like RF lenses, they won't be usable should you change to another camera system.
Yes, that's my idea of how M works. Sure, I can - and sometimes do - use my EF lenses on it, but M remains unchallenged for me for that particular set of compromises, and RF just can't challenge that.
