The diameters of EFM and RF mounts

R2D2 wrote:

lumenite wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

lumenite wrote:

In my opinion, Canon's first decision as to the diameter of EFM mount was a mistake.

Mistake? You mis-read Asian corporate culture methinks. A smaller M-Mount was part of their plan all along. They think in the Loooong term.

It will turn out to be a mistake if Canon really ditches the mount any time soon, although it will have lasted longer than Nikon 1.

The M occupies a niche that cannot, will not, (not in anyone's wildest dreams!) be filled by a crop RF body. ...and to your point it is the diameter of the EF-M mount that actually guarantees this!

+1. Very well said !

Myself, I can certainly see Canon's logic. Why sell just one lens line when you can sell two! Or threee! It's brilliant!

That's one of the things that I do not understand regarding Canon's strategy about APS-C system. Why do they not put more money to APS-C when they are still the number one in Camera industry? Just a little more lenses and bodies for APSC would have been great.

Canon first and foremost protects their own higher level camera lines. It's built into their corporate identity!

They must have thought that the mount was good enough against M43 kingdoms or Sony E mount.

Absolutely.

Moreover they must have not been serious with mirrorless system at the moment since APS-C market has not been their main target. It seems certain that they just wanted to defend the market with the minimum effort.

This is exactly right. Plus it's been super-popular to boot!

Finally they had to develop another mount, which is RF with 54mm diameter, while the diameter of EFM is 47mm.

The RF mount much better accommodates Full Frame Mirrorless. It was a natural progression.

Sony E mount is 47mm wide; Leica L, 51mm; Nikon Z 55mm. All of them support both full frame and APS-C sensors.

Except Canon and Nikon now aren't locked into an inferior mount. They have that big wide throat to work with.

Now RF appears to want to support both as well.

So? It costs them next to nothing to develop a couple of cheapo RF-S lenses. As some have mentioned, they could even basically re-run a couple of EF-M designs with a new mount!

At this moment, I think Canon had made another mistake when they released RF.

Not me. I've been shooting with Canon RF for almost 2 years now, and it's magnificent.

The mount looks too big to be shared with APS C bodies since they have to give up small form factor.

Thus EOS-M! It was viable back with EF, and it's still viable with RF on the scene. I'm living proof! Vive le 'M!! Vive le 'M!!

Considering Sony's latest lenses, I doubt Canon and Nikon's argument for a bigger mount. Canon must have thought that they would use RF only for fullframe and they needed a totally new, better mount for their future.

Again, it can be used for both FF and crop. Just like EF was. For minimal expenditure.

Would Canon really have chosen 54mm if they had not had EFM?

Certainly. It allows for improved lens designs!

Although RF is not good for compact APSC bodies and Canon maybe has to give up EOS M

Canon might (might!) give up on EOS-M, but we don't have to.

Yes. I won't give up until my things die

Me too! Me too!

Me three! Me three!

since I do not know how to sell all of them and restart all things from the scratch.

I think, however, Canon would not be able to avoid using RF for APSC bodies in the end.

Right. Why develop another APS-C mount when it's not needed.

It is a better mount in terms of technology, and their focus has been always on fullframe market, apart from the inefficiency of keeping two mounts.

EOS-M is operating all in The Black for Canon. Even an M6 Mark III "firmware upgrade" would cost them next to nothing.

What do you think? Which of the following would be the best solution?

The best solution depends on what you're shooting, and how. IMHO it's great to have a number of excellent choices... Rather than the other way around.

R2

Thank you for your interactive reaction!

Nothing like a little competition to spark discussion!

R2