Would you want an APS-C camera with an RF mount?

Cato1040 wrote:

Honestly, this is just out of curiosity, but I was wondering if you think it would make sense for Canon to abandon the M-mount and have just one mount for their 'full frame' and APS-C mirrorless systems. It may hurt immediately

but arguably could be better in the long-run.

Why?

Feel free to comment on thoughts too.

So, do you think Canon should expand the RF-mount to include APS-C bodies and lenses?

APS-C is not the future. RP is already small. Make it even smaller and there goes the need for APS-C.

Cato1040 wrote:

Honestly, this is just out of curiosity, but I was wondering if you think it would make sense for Canon to abandon the M-mount and have just one mount for their 'full frame' and APS-C mirrorless systems. It may hurt immediately but arguably could be better in the long-run.

Why would it be better in the long run? The RF mount would mean bigger lensew and a significant source of the appeal of the M is its size.

Feel free to comment on thoughts too.

So, do you think Canon should expand the RF-mount to include APS-C bodies and lenses?

Most people think this is good or bad depending on what they want. Canon would need to do a survey of APS-C users to determine how many want the bigger lenses and smaller sensor. My guess is that it would be a few that want the extra "reach", but the majority of APS-C users want smaller cameras, don't care or don't know the difference.

I've mulled this over a ton. Right from 3 days prior to the RF mount announcement as a matter of fact.

I think long run having two different mounts is a bit of a problem for Canon, but I think it's more perception than reality.

I suspect that Canon feels that people that buy into the EF-M overwhelmingly don't upgrade or don't want to upgrade out of that system, thus making mount compatibility a dead issue.

I have an EOS-M system.

I will have an EOS RF system this year as well.

I don't feel cheated, ripped off or otherwise disappointed that the #($*&#$ big RF lenses won't mount onto my M5 because the damned things would be an ergonomic freaking nightmare on a diminutive M5. My M5 kit is my grab and go, take anywhere kit. The RF system cannot and will not be that.   Nor do I feel my APS-C M lenses are a big deal because they don't mount on the RF.  They would equate to 11MP lenses. I get 24MP images using them with an M5. What camera would I use these lenses on again?

I see here in the forums a few people from what appears the Sony forum mostly, are carrying the crusade that Canon is doomed because they have a different mount for APS-C and another for full frame. I just don't know. with the size of the full frame lenses we have right now, even if the EOS-M and RF had the same mount, you'd never want to try mounting those lenses onto an M.

From the tea leaves it looks like the industry on a whole is going to do a massive contraction - and APS-C, for the most part, will be the victim.

While pushing more and more upmarket is essentially dooming yourself, Canon has shown that's possible to release a cheap full frame camera body. They could probably even release the EOS RP sans EVF for $999 even.

Over time, the performance out of the various EOS RF cameras will be good enough through the line, that there's no real need for an APS-C RF mount camera, they will be limited to special cases, and probably have already migrated to m43 which offers even greater benefits to the long end telephoto shooting.

If it wasn't for perception on killing off a mount, this could be done easily and within a year for Canon with little in the way of R&D.

a) make an APS-C RF mount camera with the current M50 guts and sell it as cheap as the M50.

b) retrofit all the 61mm diamater EF-M mount lenses to 66mm to fit on the RF mount, and switch the mount to RF mount. To ease in migration leave the lens communication for version I of the lenses as EF (or EF-M same thing).

Within a year Canon would have two half decent kit lenses, telephoto kit lens, a couple of RF-S primes and a UWA. good enough for phase I and easily performed.

Phase II

a) complement the kit lenses with a couple more EF-S primes, and add in a 15-55 F2.8 RF-S high end kit lens.

b) migrate the electronic guts of the 90D to RF-S for a high performance RF-S camera body.

BUT it's lousy on perception for those that purchased EOS-M cameras. Which just happens to be one of the top selling mirrorless systems right now in at least Asia in terms of units.

Also no matter if these were just taking EF-M designs, this still requires developer time, in terms of manufacturing tool and die, and rollout, taking critical time away from the core objective of the RF full frame lenses and system.

For this last reason, I don't think it's going to happen. Canon must desperately move fast on the RF mount. WIthin 2-3 more years canon will probably have around 25-35 lenses for the system, making it a credible standalone system. They just don't have the spare time to do anything else at the moment.

rrc1967 wrote:

I've mulled this over a ton. Right from 3 days prior to the RF mount announcement as a matter of fact.

I think long run having two different mounts is a bit of a problem for Canon, but I think it's more perception than reality.

I suspect that Canon feels that people that buy into the EF-M overwhelmingly don't upgrade or don't want to upgrade out of that system, thus making mount compatibility a dead issue.

I have an EOS-M system.

I will have an EOS RF system this year as well.

I don't feel cheated, ripped off or otherwise disappointed that the #($*&#$ big RF lenses won't mount onto my M5 because the damned things would be an ergonomic freaking nightmare on a diminutive M5. My M5 kit is my grab and go, take anywhere kit. The RF system cannot and will not be that. Nor do I feel my APS-C M lenses are a big deal because they don't mount on the RF. They would equate to 11MP lenses. I get 24MP images using them with an M5. What camera would I use these lenses on again?

I see here in the forums a few people from what appears the Sony forum mostly, are carrying the crusade that Canon is doomed because they have a different mount for APS-C and another for full frame. I just don't know. with the size of the full frame lenses we have right now, even if the EOS-M and RF had the same mount, you'd never want to try mounting those lenses onto an M.

From the tea leaves it looks like the industry on a whole is going to do a massive contraction - and APS-C, for the most part, will be the victim.

While pushing more and more upmarket is essentially dooming yourself, Canon has shown that's possible to release a cheap full frame camera body. They could probably even release the EOS RP sans EVF for $999 even.

Over time, the performance out of the various EOS RF cameras will be good enough through the line, that there's no real need for an APS-C RF mount camera, they will be limited to special cases, and probably have already migrated to m43 which offers even greater benefits to the long end telephoto shooting.

If it wasn't for perception on killing off a mount, this could be done easily and within a year for Canon with little in the way of R&D.

a) make an APS-C RF mount camera with the current M50 guts and sell it as cheap as the M50.

b) retrofit all the 61mm diamater EF-M mount lenses to 66mm to fit on the RF mount, and switch the mount to RF mount. To ease in migration leave the lens communication for version I of the lenses as EF (or EF-M same thing).

Within a year Canon would have two half decent kit lenses, telephoto kit lens, a couple of RF-S primes and a UWA. good enough for phase I and easily performed.

Phase II

a) complement the kit lenses with a couple more EF-S primes, and add in a 15-55 F2.8 RF-S high end kit lens.

b) migrate the electronic guts of the 90D to RF-S for a high performance RF-S camera body.

BUT it's lousy on perception for those that purchased EOS-M cameras. Which just happens to be one of the top selling mirrorless systems right now in at least Asia in terms of units.

Also no matter if these were just taking EF-M designs, this still requires developer time, in terms of manufacturing tool and die, and rollout, taking critical time away from the core objective of the RF full frame lenses and system.

For this last reason, I don't think it's going to happen. Canon must desperately move fast on the RF mount. WIthin 2-3 more years canon will probably have around 25-35 lenses for the system, making it a credible standalone system. They just don't have the spare time to do anything else at the moment.

I agree with what you wrote. I think if the industry drives down full frame prices, APS-C is finished outside of small cameras like the M. Than the primary motivation will be about size of the overall camera.

If we think back to the rationale for APS-C it was because full frame was so expensive. If full frame prices are driven down there really is no need for an RF APSC camera.

I think both Canon and Nikon misjudged the camera market and were used to selling incremental upgrades. Now its very readily apparent that their market is evaporating which is why they jumped on the mirrorless full frame bandwagon.

Cato1040 wrote:

This is really interesting.

First of all, to explain, the reason why I and many others would think it would be good to just have one mount is because many start with APS-C then go up to 'full frame'. I'm not sure about numbers but I know many full-frame users used to shoot APS-C so being able to bring up some lenses with the 'upgrade' can save on cost. Also, many sports and wildlife photographers prefer APS-C for the reach, but may still want a 'full frame' camera for other purposes, so sharing lenses there can be nice. Same with being able to share lenses between a more compact kit and a more 'professional' kit.

However, from what I'm hearing, many would say that with a drop in 'full frame' prices and an increase in resolution (for cropping), the arguments above lose some of their value.

Thanks for entertaining my curiosity!

There's been alot of talk about this subject.  I only have myself to blame since I basically started it before the EOS R was announced

After writing up your response i decided to take another stab at it and wrote up an article on our site in more detail than my post would offer without peaving people off.

Cato1040 wrote:

Sorry if this bothers you, I tried to find a thread on this forum discussing this but didn't find one. Maybe it has been discussed under other topics or maybe I just couldn't find it. If you could show me, that would be great to see more views too.

I definitely agree that views would be based on their own experience and needs and they should. That's why there's a poll because different people will have different opinions on this.

I wouldn't worry about it. it's going to get asked a TON more times.

it's an often asked question for sure, but there is no right answer.

The real complication is what to do with the 7D. everything else is pretty uncomplicated. But that 7D sure does cause problems.

I think that Canon is going to just hope the 7D goes away quietly, and they don't update or release a new one, unless it's just an EF DLSR.

Some light reading material - this was inspired by this thread, so see? every question can have it's worth. I touch on APS-C being on the RF mount a little, but more what to do with the EOS-M with the RF system, and a myth I see perpetuated in dpreview when doing research about how doomed Canon is because the EOS-M and EOS-RF mounts are not compatible.

https://www.canonnews.com/the-eos-m-quandary

This one was our original.. WTH is canon doing once the RF mount leaked for real. The interest was pretty impressive, even CNET covered it.

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-is-causing-its-own-problems-with-the-rf-mount-46

I'm going to probably write another article just really about what you are asking. should canon release an APS-C camera for the RF mount.  I think there's alot to unpack about that specifically.  There's alot of pros and cons to it when you start to drill down. The impact on existing systems, and do you make an infrastructure for just one camera body?

So no, don't feel bad about bringing up questions. If anything, I'm a little selfish personally because it sometimes gives me ideas on things to write about. So thanks!

rrc1967 wrote:

and a myth I see perpetuated in dpreview when doing research about how doomed Canon is because the EOS-M and EOS-RF mounts are not compatible.

Which is a bit silly. I’d wager most APS-C buyers never bought EF lenses. Most buy the kit lens and stop. The next level is buying one or two more EF-S lenses. A few bought EF lenses. So, effectively Canon have had parallel systems for quite a while.

lilBuddha wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

and a myth I see perpetuated in dpreview when doing research about how doomed Canon is because the EOS-M and EOS-RF mounts are not compatible.

Which is a bit silly. I’d wager most APS-C buyers never bought EF lenses. Most buy the kit lens and stop. The next level is buying one or two more EF-S lenses. A few bought EF lenses. So, effectively Canon have had parallel systems for quite a while.

it is.  with the pixel density of 26 and 30mp for the RP and R, I can't see the worth of using EF-M or EF-S glass outside of video on either camera.

and using crop camera glass for video is a solution to a short term problem.

An RP or R user isn't limited to needing EF-S or EF-M glass; they have a largest stable of used lenses and new lenses to choose from on the planet.  Just about every single EF lens will work on both cameras without a problem.

You have lenses like the 24,28,35,40,50, 85, 100 all fairly inexpensive.  even the EF 24-105 or the EF 24-70/4 are cheap.  Or the 17-40 isn't that bad on 26MP either.

Then you have the original 70-200/4's if you are shooting fast action or subjects with shutter speeds over 1/200th you don't need IS.

the 100-400L, 70-300L are both great lenses and not that expensive.

or you have old but good 200 2.8L 300/4L and 400 5.6L's as well.

again depending on what you are shooting you may not need IS that badly.

Yes, you'll have to replace lenses if you migrate, but you are going to do that anyways otherwise there's absolutely no point in getting a full frame camera.

So what?