Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

m100 wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Canon's #1 operating principle has always been to protect their higher end sales. Period. It's never been a question of ability, it's always been about will.

I've always had difficulty believing that bit of folklore. If Canon can make money out of fast APS-C lenses they will. Those lenses aren't so much about stealing sales from their high end as stealing sales from their competitors and making their competitors look unattractive.

But those high end APS-C lenses are also up against Canon's low end FF models so, while the £490 EF-M 32mm f/1.4 makes the £700 XF 33mm f/1.4 look too big, too heavy and too expensive, the RF 50mm f/1.8 is smaller, lighter and less than half the price of its EF-M equivalent. Canon can sell the EF-M lens because it's excellent and won't fit RF mount or DSLRs, but an RF mount version is a harder sell. From an engineering point of view, top end APS-C is just too expensive for its results compared with low end FF.

My EF 50mm STM was not too bad on my 6D at f/1.8.

On my M6II the 50mm STM was not as usable at f/1.8 at all.

The 32mm is always sharp ?

this is the FF advantage that you have discovered

as the APS-c  32mm F1.4 projects an image 1/2 the size on the smaller sensor, you have to enlarge that image twice as much as you would a FF lens projecting on a bigger sensor when you view the image at your normal viewing size, the APS-c lens has to be twice as good optically to match a FF lens on a FF sensor as you have enlarged the image by approx 2x

also to compare  the FF 50 F1,8 to the 32mmf1.4 APS-c the FF lens needs to be set at F2.2 for equivalent DOF which put the FF lens at an advantage being stopped down a little

as you have found if you put the FF lens on the APS-c body it loses it FF advantage