MikeJ9116 wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
Sittatunga wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
justmeMN wrote:
MikeJ9116 wrote:
Because the M system is a dead end one.
And yet, the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera, both in the USA and in Japan.
It is still a dead end system in Canon's MILC world and one with a pathetic native lens catalog that Canon chose to orphan with the release of the RF mount. Canon has shown little reason why the M system will be around long term. Eight years in and they still haven't built a compelling lens catalog and are letting 2nd party lens makers take profits they would be taking themselves if they were committed to this system. Now that the RF mount is off limits for it the M system's future doesn't look all that bright, IMO. Especially considering the commitment they have shown to the R system in just 2.5 years. If APS-C comes to the RF mount I don't see the M system being actively supported for the long term by Canon.
If APS-C comes to the RF mount I don't see Canon having as much commitment to it as they have had to the M system.
I see that APS-C coming to the RF mount would already have much more commitment than they have shown in the M system with just the current RF lens catalog. Add in a few APS-C oriented RF lenses and there would be no comparison. The current RF lens catalog supplemented with the EF-S 10-18mm, 55-250mm STM, 15-85mm and the EF-S primes would be miles ahead of the M system. I would rather have the RF 35mm IS than the EF-M 32mm without IS. Then there is the RF 85mm F/2 and 50mm f/1.8 that will natively mount among many other existing RF lenses with many more to come.
Can you point me to a lens roadmap for the EF-M mount? Has one ever existed?
I don't think one has ever been published, but then Canon didn't publish EF-S, EF or FD lens roadmaps either.
My guess is Canon did have a lens roadmap in the early days of the EF mount like they have done with the RF mount
They certainly didn't publish it. They obviously have future plans for all their products, but Canon historically have not been in the habit of publishing them in advance.
I've actually tried the RF 35mm lens and found it wanting; I'd hoped to replace my other 35mm lens with it. Its combination of astigmatism and coma makes it worse for astro on the EOS R than the 21mm f/1.4 Samyang is on the EOS M. I've not tried the EF-M 32mm as it's a lot more than I am prepared to pay for an APS-C lens, but from all reports it's a much better lens. Don't forget that the EOS M can also use all those EF-S lenses you mentioned, not to mention 60-odd EF lenses too.
What I found with the M3 is that adapting EF lenses took away the size/weight reason to have M cameras. The handling was awkward.
Well yes, that's why the EF-M lenses are small and consequently slow. That, in turn, is why there isn't a huge range of them. The M3 was probably the worst handling of the M series too.
When I went back to the SL2 these lenses were much better balanced and the SL2 body wasn't bigger or heavier (actually I believe it was lighter weight) than the M5 with the adapter attached. I don't think APS-C RF mount cameras will be much, if any, smaller than the RP and the R7 will be about the size of the R6.
Neither do I. That's why I would give them a miss.
I just don't see the appeal of RF mount APS-C format apart from the 7D sports/birding camera replacement.
Canon can have APS-C RF mount bodies around the size of Rebel cameras. This formula proved to be a big success in the DSLR era. Actually, the trend in MILC has been toward larger bodies in the past few years to increase grip size and battery capacity. The 5D/4 is only 0.14 pounds (62g) heavier than the R5. I think most Rebel series users were perfectly happy with the size and weight of those cameras. I know I am with the SL2.
I certainly wasn't. I had a couple of 1000 series EOS DSLRs when I had a young family and more pressing things to spend my money on than FF DSLRs. The viewfinders reminded me of a Zenit E's. I like my EOS M series cameras precisely because they are minimalist and smaller than most micro four-thirds cameras. I like my EOS R for the way it makes the most of my EF lenses. Once you get to that size of camera though, the attractions of crop format for general purposes disappear.
The SL2/3 cameras aren't much bigger or heavier than the M5. I bought into the M system for the size but the lack of EF-M lenses made it a hopeless cause for me. If I had to adapt EF lenses to get the performance I wanted then I might as well buy a DSLR. Especially if I didn't have to take a hit in size or weight regarding the body. Up until the M6/2, and to a lesser extent the M50, the M bodies weren't nothing to crow about. Even with these bodies there is still the massive issue with the EF-M lens catalog.
If Canon brings out APS-C in the R system I think these cameras will be the ones we had hoped to see in the M system for capability (i.e. IBIS, robust lens catalog, more state of the art technology etc.). These cameras will better compete with offerings from Fuji, Sony and Nikon.
Canon aren't going to create a robust catalogue of RF lenses as they are flat out with the FF lenses.
Do you just expect them to do the same thing they have done in the M system? I don't.
Too right they won't. It doesn't make sense for them to make any RF mount crop lenses.
Very few people would buy them. RF mount APS-C cameras with IBIS and more state of the art technology etc. would be even more expensive than the M6II, so first time buyers would be more tempted by the successor to the RP. An APS-C RF mount camera is even more of a niche product than the EOS M. Nikon have all of two APS-C Z mount lenses and their other DX lenses make even less sense on the Z50 than EF-S lenses on the M series.
Your assumptions are flawed. You give way too much consideration to the M system. Another flawed assumption is thinking most APS-C users are wanting FF cameras.
They don't want them, largely because of the size of the lenses. That's why an RF 35mm f/1.8 isn't as attractive if you're going to stay with APS-C as a smaller EF-M 32mm f/1.4 for much the same price. Or a RF 15-35mm, larger than and twice the price of an M6II with a 15-45mm zoom attached. Very few FF lenses shorter than 100mm make any sense on APS-C unless you also also use them on FF. As you have pointed out, most APS-C users don't want FF cameras. I don't want the bulk and expense of FF when I'm using APS-C, unless it's too avoid buying an even bulkier and more expensive long tele lens. Your flawed assumption is that Canon is as keen on large APS-C cameras as you are.
They don't. A RF mount APS-C camera won't be any more niche than an M camera. It would actually be far less due to the existing RF lens catalog alone without even considering future lenses.
Really? The zoom lenses are too big compared with EF-M, apart from the 70-200mm and possibly the (big by APS-C standards) 24-240mm and the 100-500mm. The RF 35mm isn't as good as the EF-M 32mm, which leaves the 50mm f/1.8 (cheaper than the Sigma 56mm f/1.4) and the 85mm f/2. My favourite APS-C lens is the 11-22mm.
Comparing Nikon to Canon these days is meaningless. I am doubting if Nikon can even survive the MILC wars. If Canon brings about APS-C to the R system they will do a much better job of executing it than Nikon has done. Canon certainly has regarding FF.
