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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I couldn't disagree more. What keeps me choosing my M6II over my R for many occasions is the superb and compact EF-M lenses. The M6II with 22 pancake is much smaller and lighter than any R combo. The 32 F1.4 and Sigma 56 F1.4 are worth getting an M body to use all by themselves. The ability to use an EF lens with both M and R bodies is certainly a point in their favor, and the reason why I have kept the EF 70-200 F2.8L IS II and added the Tamron 100-400. But the real advantage of the M system, and the reason why it's worth owning in addition to or even instead of the R system is the size, weight, IQ and price. Using EF lenses with adapter considerably reduces the size and weight advantages, and in many cases the IQ as well (the Sigma 56 is so much better than the Canon EF 50 F1.8, the EF-M 32 is better, faster, smaller and lighter than the Canon 35 F2, even without adapter).
