Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

nnowak wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I don't think Fuji's market share has changed dramatically in the last few years. Any M users moving to Fuji are mostly coming from that small middle group I mentioned above. RF users will just add RF-S.

The R7 has a very attractive specification, but it's not significantly smaller that the R, so it's more a replacement for the 7D or 90D than for EOS M. There's little point as I own an FF RF mount camera for me to buy an APS-Ccamera that's a similar size to it except as a teleconverter. I might be tempted by its self-levelling IBIS if i were feeling flush, but my existing lenses would suffice for it. I would see little point in buying RF-S lenses for it as I was never tempted by the EF-M 18-150mm; I want tiny APS-C lenses because that's the whole point of APS-C for me. I know that a lot of people on the EOS R forum like the R7 and R10, but they're too big, and the R50 lacks the cleaning vibrator. No point in going to the size and expense of Fuji either, so EF-M is probably the end of the APS-C lens road for me.

... If the manufacturers knew where mirrorless technology would end up, and how inexpensive full frame sensor would become, many (most?) would have made different design choices for their new mounts.

And if there hadn't been such vocal lobbies for consistent lens mounts and against adapters, both EF-M and EF mounts would be in much better condition today.

Mirrorless killed EF. There is no way around that fact. There is no point in building new EF lenses if no one is buying new EF DSLRs. Anyone still wanting to adapt EF glass in the future will have a plethora to choose from on the used market for decades to come.

Consistent mounts just make sense. The ONLY reason for separate mounts is to potentially make cameras and lenses slightly smaller.

Which for me is the ONLY reason for APS-C lenses.

"potentially" was the key word. Choices in the optical formula have far more impact on lens size than the diameter of the mount.

Even with the larger mount, the R50 and existing RF-S lenses are within single digit percentages of the size and weight of the M50 and comparable EF-M lenses.

I have handled the M50 and thought the hump made it just that bit big for comfort. The R50 doesn't have a cleaning vibrator, which puts me off, as does the need of an adapter for my flashguns.

I guess I don't understand this logic. The viewfinder hump is supposedly too big, but you want to use a strobe on the camera?

I should have separated those statements, they referred to different issues. I wasn't impressed enough with the EVF of the M50 to want to use it, but it makes the camera just too big to slip into my jeans' pocket.

The only time the viewfinder argument really makes any sense is if you are only mounting the EF-M 22mm pancake lens and you want to fit the combo in a jacket pocket.

That's my use case for APS-C. I'll bring my R and/or even my DSLR if I'm packing a bag.

As soon as you add even a second lens the additional volume occupied by a viewfinder hump is completely inconsequential. It is always surprising how many people complain about the slightly larger size of a body with a built-in viewfinder, but then load up their bag with two M6 II bodies, a half dozen lenses, multiple batteries, filters, tripod, etc.

Within reason, the diameter of the mount is not the primary factor in determining camera and lens size. Fuji's mount is actually smaller than EF-M, yet people in this forum constantly complain that Fuji gear is too big.

That's what you get for wanting fast APS-C lenses. But the X-H2S is within millimetres of the size of the R6 and 60g heavier.

Especially at the higher end, there is such a thing as being "too small". Ergonomics matter far more than being able to fit the gear into a certain sized pocket.

APS-C isn't the higher end for me. I have full-frame for that. The ergonomics of the M100 are different from those of full-frame cameras and part of the joy of them is not having to use a bag.

If Canon had made the EF-M mount just 2mm bigger, they could have followed the same path as Sony, and the RF mount never would have been needed.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Canon could have made the RF mount completely compatible with EF-M lenses using a tiny simple adapter (like the Pentax K to screw mount adapter) by moving it just 2mm closer to the sensor if only the EF-M contacts weren't incompatible with the size of a 35mm format sensor.

In hindsight, I bet every manufacturer would have done something different with their first mirrorless mounts.

Nikon's Z mount could easily accommodate an adapter for EF-M. There is already an adapter for Sony E to Nikon Z. Canon's choice to use a longer flange distance for RF than EF-M makes adapters pretty much impossible.

Canon's design for the EF-M contacts are indeed a limiting factor. The Sony mount is a hair smaller in diameter than the EF-M mount, but the EF-M contacts are bigger and closer to the image circle. The net result is that it is easier to fit a full frame sensor in the Sony E mount than Canon EF-M mount.