# Opinion: Canon is causing its own problems with the RF mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2018)

> Richard over at Canon News has written an opinion piece about the new Canon RF mount and what it means for the Canon ecosystem. He feels, as others do, that the EOS M system and EF-M mount are surrounded with some uncertainty.
> *From Canon News:*
> Canon this September 5th is releasing the RF mount for full frame mirrorless.  This mount by all reports is 54mm in diameter for the inner throat diameter and 20mm in depth.  While this mount by itself sounds good, it has long term negative ramifications on the EOS system over time, that has us surprised they are doing this unless there are tectonic shifts in direction throughout Canon’s lineup.
> The problem with this new mount, is not what you can do with it, but what you can’t do with it.  Canon in 2012 created a new mount for APS-C mirrorless called the EF-M mount.  It has a 46mm throat diameter and a 18mm registration distance.  Because of the difference in between the two mount registration distances (the distance between the...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 3, 2018)

Valid points. Maybe canon will keep 2 different mounts for milc just like what Fuji is doing right now minus the lens selection for ef-m.


----------



## weixing (Sep 3, 2018)

Hi,
I think it's possible that Canon reserve the EF-M mount for the very compact and small mirrorless system. If this is true, future release of EF-M lens should be compact and small.

Have a nice day.


----------



## meho1a (Sep 3, 2018)

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 3, 2018)

So, which problems exactly?

Someone won't be able to put 28-70/2 non-IS on M50?

Is it really a problem for Canon?


----------



## preppyak (Sep 3, 2018)

This shouldnt be surprising from a company that ditched their entire back catalog in the late 80s and started from scratch. And now today is generally considered the deepest lens line. Canon thinks long-term with their big decisions; took a while to develop the RF mount and ditch the EF-M for the longer term potential


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

preppyak said:


> This shouldnt be surprising from a company that ditched their entire back catalog in the late 80s and started from scratch. And now today is generally considered the deepest lens line. Canon thinks long-term with their big decisions; took a while to develop the RF mount and ditch the EF-M for the longer term potential


It's not that easy. using the RF mount for small cameras, has the problem of a much larger mount being used on a small camera body.

The RF mount certainly causes some issues with Canon going forward, even if they dump the EF-M mount.

Life would have been easy if they a) used the EF-M mount for full frame b) increased the registration distance and decreased the throat diameter a bit off the RF mount to allow for an adapter. maybe they ditch the EF-M all together, it's certainly a possibility. That would be hard to swallow now that they are starting to gain momentum on the mount.

While that doesn't impact the system now, going forward if they decide to be competitive in the APS-C mirrorless they are going to have to come out with a 7D-like mirrorless, and where does that sit and what mount does it use is a problem no matter what they choose.


----------



## Uneternal (Sep 3, 2018)

"It is impossible for this mount to be adapted to the new RF full frame mount"
Why would you want a EF-M lens that only fills up an APS-C area on a full frame mount? EF-S also can't be used on EF and nobody batted an eye yet.
The new mount tho, lets you use EF, EF-S and probably also FD soon.


----------



## colorblinded (Sep 3, 2018)

Janky English aside, I hadn't considered the potential issue of adapting RF lenses.
I'm not remotely concerned about not being able to put an EF-M lens on an RF body, but it sounds like they're suggesting RF lenses won't be adaptable to EF-M bodies.
If you really cannot adapt an RF lens to an EF-M body, that is indeed unfortunate. While physically I can imagine an adapter could be made to go from a 46mm wide, 18mm deep mount to a lens designed for a 54mm wide, 20mm deep mount... jamming the wiring in probably means thinner/weaker metal somewhere with so few millimeters to spare. Plus, some lenses with protruding rear components... eesh yeah it becomes a mess.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> "It is impossible for this mount to be adapted to the new RF full frame mount"
> Why would you want a EF-M lens that only fills up an APS-C area on a full frame mount? EF-S also can't be used on EF and nobody batted an eye yet.
> The new mount tho, lets you use EF, EF-S and probably also FD soon.



I see the confusion with the writing here. We won't see RF lenses adapted for EF-M. This may create a problem for some shooters that would want an EOS M as a backup to an EOS R, you're going to have to have 2 sets of lenses. There are a lot of people that use a 7D2 as a backup to a 5D and EOS-1 series camera and can purchase one set of lenses to fit the needs of both.


----------



## Bambel (Sep 3, 2018)

I don't get why Canon should ditch its EF-M mount/line of lenses. The initial FR-lenses are the opposit of EF-M lenses. Chunky and expensive (L!) vs. cheap and plasticy. M is cheap, small, light and even if there is only one M lens released each year that's enough IMO. i also don't think that EF lenses are an endangered species as long as people buy them. EF-S the same: Canon has developed a lot of lenses and can sell them until no one wants them anymore, but given their much lower price than (crop adjusted) EF lenses and the cheaper crop bodys they will sell for some time to come. 

But: i'm not so sure how successfull R lenses will be. The beauty of adapting EF lenses is that it's electronics only, compared to Nikons numerous F-flavors with mechanics and all that. I've been shooting Canon crop bodys for 12 years now and never considered FF because most of the time i focus to something off center and a 6D has a narrow AF point spread and a 5D is too expensive for this amateur. But this R sounds very interesting to me because slow fps but a large AF area is just what i need. But i would not consider buying a R lense like the 24-105 if i can get the more flexible EF version for a similar price or even lower when bought used. 

So far the 28-70/2 seems to be the only real not-possible-in-EF lens and this beast will be way to expensive for me. 

Interessting times. Can't wait for the official anouncement on wednesday about all R features and prices.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 3, 2018)

I have some thoughts on this because I also reached this conclusion after reading the "specs" we're all taking as fact.

1.) There isn't a single lens on the EF-M mount I would want to adapt on a full-frame sensor and then crop in. It's no secret that the 22mm is a great little lens, but beyond that, only the 11-22mm is really anything special. I have the M50 for size and convenience. It's a _somewhat _pocketable 80D and it's what I use it as exclusively. I pack a full roller bag when I travel for work and can slip the M50 with the 22mm almost anywhere. The M lineup of lenses...or lack there of, have all shared a focus on size over performance. It's honestly what I like about it. Sure, faster lenses would be nice, but with more light comes more heft. It's fine if they wish to offer larger, faster lenses...but it doesn't appear that Canon is considering that with zooms any time soon.

2.) If these rumors hold true, Canon will now be selling lenses for four different camera mounts - EF-S, EF-M, EF, and RF. The only true discrepancy in this lineup is that the two mirrorless camera mounts won't play together...I'm sure Canon has looked at its lens sales and understands it's not really missing out on very many cross platform support. As mentioned above, Canon full-frame was never able to work with EF-S lenses. But, you have now lost the upgrade path of buying a crop sensor body and investing in full-frame lenses to upgrade over time. You can no longer do this in the mirrorless ecosystem

What does this mean for the future of the EOS-M mount? Like others have said, I really hope they maintain a priority of keeping the M system as compact as possible. God knows that the RF 28-70 and 50mm f/1.2 won't be. If you want a light, consumer/prosumer camera to take on vacation, shoot video or vlog with, the EOS-M series is your ticket. If you're looking for a professional mirrorless system, the RF cameras is your choice.

I admit, this creates concerns for the future of the M-mount. But I'm extremely happy they didn't try to force the mount to work with full-frame and make sacrifices in capabilities, performance and the future overall.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

In one of the other multitude of RF threads I raised exactly the same issue about "where does this leave the 7D?"

I think we all know the answer is that there won't be an APS-C sensor RF body, and those wanting to use lenses on both an M series and an R series camera are stuck with EF lenses and adaptors on both bodies.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> "It is impossible for this mount to be adapted to the new RF full frame mount"
> Why would you want a EF-M lens that only fills up an APS-C area on a full frame mount? EF-S also can't be used on EF and nobody batted an eye yet.
> The new mount tho, lets you use EF, EF-S and probably also FD soon.


the problem is not now but if canon wants to continue to compete in the APS-C mirrorless.With the A7000 coming out (supposedly) and the X-T3 coming out (supposedly) all with very high end mirrorless capabilities, what would canon use as a mount on a competitive 7D-like APS-C? the RF with full frame lenses but at least L grade but not optimized for APS-C, or limit it to EF-M consumer lenses and older EF lenses?


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> In one of the other multitude of RF threads I raised exactly the same issue about "where does this leave the 7D?"
> 
> I think we all know the answer is that there won't be an APS-C sensor RF body, and those wanting to use lenses on both an M series and an R series camera are stuck with EF lenses and adaptors on both bodies.



Right!

But then you have a weathersealed mag alloy nice camera body using non-weathersealed consumer lenses EF-M or older EF L lenses.

Meanwhile in Sony land, you can interchange and use from a catalog of FE and E mount lenses seamlessly. Sony keeps you in their ecosystem, Canon may force you to wholesale switch.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> 1.) There isn't a single lens on the EF-M mount I would want to adapt on a full-frame sensor and then crop in.



That isn't the issue at all. It's the reverse.

Think about at the moment. You get an 80D and you buy some lenses. Let's look at someone who bought an EF-S 18-55, an EF-S 10-18, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-300 IS non-L zoom. Maybe your later lens choices were in part driven by knowing the lenses are future-proof if you decide to switch to FF.

Part of the incentive in upgrading from the 80D to full frame is that at least some of your lenses can continue to be used. 

Now, if Canon had for example kept to the EF-M mount for full frame, in the future we could have the same situation, low cost 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 EF-M lenses and a low cost 70-300 that would work with the EF-M but would also provide a full-frame image circle for when you upgraded to a FF camera.

Instead, you're stuck with APS-C only EF-M lenses, and the incentive to upgrade is far less. Suddenly the entry cost to FF is prohibitive.

This doens't affect Nikon because they have no APS-C mirrorless, and it doesn't affect Sony because they share the same mount.


Now, the advantages of the new mount are almost certainly worth the pain, but it is now going to be difficult to justify recommending EOS-M cameras to anyone because they will be stuck in an APS-C forever ecosystem.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

So why exactly can't RF lenses be adapted to EF-M? The article states they can't with zero justification. RF flange of 20mm which is > than EF-M flange of 18mm. 

It's a valid point about EF-M not mounting to RF (you'd want to do that if the R has crop mode functionality, like many other non-canon cameras), but that decision was made a long time ago with the EF-M diameter being too small to fit a FF sensor. 

The real problem for Canon is what they tell pros. Clearly they want pros moving to the RF mount with the L lenses released, but pros are the largest percentage of the anti-adapter crowd. How is Canon going to hold them over until RF matures and offers a competing line-up to EF? Will the 5DV and 1DX be mirrorless with EF mount?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> So why exactly can't RF lenses be adapted to EF-M? The article states they can't with zero justification. RF flange of 20mm which is > than EF-M flange of 18mm.



The short answer is that if the EF-M mount was capable of using RF lenses with an adaptor then there would have been precisely zero benefit in using the RF mount over using FF EF-M mount to begin with. Ie it may be possible assuming you're a genius with enginering to physically adapt the lenses assuming the rear elements fit, but it'd vignette like crazy.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> So why exactly can't RF lenses be adapted to EF-M? The article states they can't with zero justification. RF flange of 20mm which is > than EF-M flange of 18mm.



the mount depth with the lugs to hold the lens onto the mount requires a further depth of at least 3mm. you also have the electronic interconnects on both sides (mount and lens side). you also need the pin, lever and knob to remove the lens from the mount adapter.

then you have the fact that the mount is a 10mm greater diameter, and if a lens sits inside of the mount any, such as what the 35mm 1.8 RF does, it would not physically be able to mount on the adapter at all.

for a reverse adapter (RF body and EF-M lens), each EF-M lens is 61mm, it could not sit "inside" an RF mount adapter to get 2mm closer to the sensor.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> pros are the largest percentage of the anti-adapter crowd.



I think forum posters are the largest percentage, by a mile. Pros will use what does the job best, sometimes that's an adaptor.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The short answer is that if the EF-M mount was capable of using RF lenses with an adaptor then there would have been precisely zero benefit in using the RF mount over using FF EF-M mount to begin with. Ie it may be possible assuming you're a genius with enginering to physically adapt the lenses assuming the rear elements fit, but it'd vignette like crazy.



"FF EF-M" wasn't possible due to the diameter not accommodating a FF sensor from my understanding. Mounting FF lenses on crop (EF-M) wouldn't vignette.


----------



## zim (Sep 3, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I see the confusion with the writing here. We won't see RF lenses adapted for EF-M. This may create a problem for some shooters that would want an EOS M as a backup to an EOS R, you're going to have to have 2 sets of lenses. There are a lot of people that use a 7D2 as a backup to a 5D and EOS-1 series camera and can purchase one set of lenses to fit the needs of both.




Exactly, it's not about ditching any particular mount. It's about the flexibility a common mount gives.
Of course you can just stick with EF but will Canon? Do I really feel that Canon will introduce a new EF 50 1.4L IS or a EF 20 1.4L right now it doesn't feel like it to me.
Of course the easiest way to solve this is for Canon to be open and commit to supporting these lines they could and I think should publish a roadmap for their lens line-ups. I was really interested in and was waiting on the M5II but not now as I wouldn't be able to mount what seems to be Canon's replacement for the EF line.

I'm actually wondering if the other mirrorless still to be announced will actually be the replacement for the 7D, effectively a new line with the RF mount. To me that would make sense and be pretty exciting!


----------



## VORON (Sep 3, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> EF-S also can't be used on EF and nobody batted an eye yet.


Back in 2004 you were perfectly right. In 2018, it's not like that anymore. Mounting a good APS-C lens on 30 MP FF body would give you around 12 MP. It is plenty. It could be an opportunity for seamless upgrading from cropped camera (especially considering the fact that the FF mirrorless is made a fully functional cropped camera with single button press). Also for video tasks the cropped lenses are more than enough. 

So that's a definite mistake made by Canon and avoided by Sony.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 3, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> We won't see RF lenses adapted for EF-M. This may create a problem for some shooters that would want an EOS M as a backup to an EOS R, you're going to have to have 2 sets of lenses.


It's not a problem for Canon, though. Just the opposite: it is an opportunity for Canon to sell a more expensive body than EOS M.



canonnews said:


> the problem is not now but if canon wants to continue to compete in the APS-C mirrorless.With the A7000 coming out (supposedly) and the X-T3 coming out (supposedly) all with very high end mirrorless capabilities, what would canon use as a mount on a competitive 7D-like APS-C?


But will a "7D-like APS-C competitive" mirrorless be profitable to Canon? Especially if Canon needs to develop its own dedicated sensor (DPAF) for that niche camera.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> the mount depth with the lugs to hold the lens onto the mount requires a further depth of at least 3mm. you also have the electronic interconnects on both sides (mount and lens side). you also need the pin, lever and knob to remove the lens from the mount adapter.
> 
> then you have the fact that the mount is a 10mm greater diameter, and if a lens sits inside of the mount any, such as what the 35mm 1.8 RF does, it would not physically be able to mount on the adapter at all.
> 
> for a reverse adapter (RF body and EF-M lens), each EF-M lens is 61mm, it could not sit "inside" an RF mount adapter to get 2mm closer to the sensor.



Those are great points, but I don't think it's sufficient to say that it's impossible. I'd be comfortable betting you money that a 3rd party will tackle & figure it out if Canon doesnt have some solution.


----------



## rsdofny (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> In one of the other multitude of RF threads I raised exactly the same issue about "where does this leave the 7D?"
> 
> I think we all know the answer is that there won't be an APS-C sensor RF body, and those wanting to use lenses on both an M series and an R series camera are stuck with EF lenses and adaptors on both bodies.



I think that Canon still needs to fill the hole from 80D and 7D, which is not exactly compact, unless Canon wants to accelerate the price drop of ML FF to around $1000 sooner than expected.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 3, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> I think that Canon still needs to fill the hole from 80D and 7D, which is not exactly compact, unless Canon wants to accelerate the price drop of ML FF to around $1000 sooner than expected.


I think they can do at ~$1200 it if they put 6DII sensor there and sell EVF as an option (EVF-DC2 or a new version).


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 3, 2018)

Huh. Sony E-mount is narrower than Canon EF-M mount (46.1mm vs. 46.5mm). If the Sony E-mount cameras can take full-frame FE lenses why can't EF-M bodies? Also, Sony users are complaining about vignetting and problems with wide-angle lenses with E-mount. Sony could have avoided that problem by using Konica-Minolta's wider A-mount (49.7mm diameter), which was designed for 35mm full-frame, unlike the E-mount which was designed for NEX-style compact ILCs. So I can also argue that Sony painted themselves into a corner by using a lens mount designed for small cameras and shoehorning full-frame lenses for it. Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.


----------



## traveller (Sep 3, 2018)

I wouldn’t write off an RF to EF-M mount adapter just yet. I would say there’s a good reason why Canon chose a 20mm flange focal distance for its full frame mirrorless mount rather than the 18mm of EF-M (and Sony FE mount), or something even shorter like Nikon Z mount. I suspect that the possibility of an adapter has something t do with it.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think forum posters are the largest percentage, by a mile. Pros will use what does the job best, sometimes that's an adaptor.



Simplified workflow is our mantra and in fast paced environments we don't want to move an adapter to each new lens we want to use. We could let the adapter live on our camera body but then as soon as one RF lens enters our kit that is no longer possible (i.e. I know I wont get any RF lenses until a complete kit swap-out is possible). It's just messy and clumsy and Canon either needs to pump out RF lenses like crazy or offer a EF mirrorless in the interim.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> So why exactly can't RF lenses be adapted to EF-M? The article states they can't with zero justification. RF flange of 20mm which is > than EF-M flange of 18mm.


Technically they probably can, with an EdMika-like conversion. Certainly not a commercially viable solution. 

I'm really puzzled by Canon's disregard of the EOS M to EOS R upgrade path via pre-buying lenses. 

Still, perhaps this is an indication that Canon doesn't intend a full RF lens lineup, and will keep the RF line limited in scope and eventually release EF FF MILCs.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

traveller said:


> I wouldn’t write off an RF to EF-M mount adapter just yet.



I'm with Canonnews here. It's impossible.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Still, perhaps this is an indication that Canon doesn't intend a full RF lens lineup, and will keep the RF line limited in scope and eventually release EF FF MILCs.



The only way that might happen is if RF is a complete and utter disaster for Canon and they have no choice but to go back.

But I see no reason to think that, and they would have absolutely no reason to launch EF FF mirrorless cameras which would be a distraction from their new RF lens system.

I'll happily put money on the forthcoming "Pro" mirrorless DSLR being RF mount. There's NO way they'd launch a 'semi-pro' model with a 28-70 f/2.0 lens and then launch a 'pro' model that can't use this new superlens.

The 28-70 is going to be a ~$3K lens minimum because 95mm lens elements don't come cheap. Closest thing to it in complexity in the current lineup is probably the EF 11-24. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd love to be, but unless the R body is overpriced I would pretty much expect this lens to cost more than the body.

However, it won't be as much as the Nikon NOCT 0.95 nonsense


----------



## dak723 (Sep 3, 2018)

Hmmm. Crop Mirrorless Canon = M mount. FF Mirroless Canon = RF mount. My guess is that Canon understands that (forum dwellers not withsatnding) very few folks will want RF lenses for their M series cameras and vice versa. Considering the huge size difference in both cameras and lenes, they regard these two mirrorless systems as completely separate. The so-called "upgrade path from crop to FF" might include so few people as to be a non factor. I am interested in the new RF camera and also own the M. I would have absolutely no interest in buying an RF lens for my M5 due to size and weight.


----------



## olympus593 (Sep 3, 2018)

> _Because of the difference in between the two mount registration distances (the distance between the sensor and the mount flange) of only 2mm, there will never be an EF-M camera to RF lens adapter _



Cut the crap.

Pentax PK mount flange mount distance is 45.46mm, 1.46mm larger than EF (44mm) and there are many adapters out there, some with onboard electronics for compatibility with newer lenses. I use a "dumb" one with a PK 50mm f/1.2.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 3, 2018)

Future M-series APS-C bodies could come with an RF mount that allows M lenses to sit inside. The current complaint is about using crop-sensor lenses on FF bodies. I’d put money on Canon for future M bodies that work with EF-M lenses.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> That isn't the issue at all. It's the reverse.
> 
> Think about at the moment. You get an 80D and you buy some lenses. Let's look at someone who bought an EF-S 18-55, an EF-S 10-18, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-300 IS non-L zoom. Maybe your later lens choices were in part driven by knowing the lenses are future-proof if you decide to switch to FF.
> 
> ...


You just named my exact lens purchase history and FF migration process and reasoning.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I'll happily put money on the forthcoming "Pro" mirrorless DSLR being RF mount. There's NO way they'd launch a 'semi-pro' model with a 28-70 f/2.0 lens and then launch a 'pro' model that can't use this new superlens.



That's how I feel too. As much as I'd love an EF mirrorless, the RF lenses point to full-steam ahead on RF. I think the official word from Canon will be "we're developing both simultaneously" but that'll mean new paint job EF lenses as the RF line is matured.


----------



## stefang (Sep 3, 2018)

Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Sep 3, 2018)

I don't agree with the idea of an upgrade path from EOS-M to EOS-RF. I purchased an M50 because it checked off enough of the boxes to make the purchase. It's a small, light package that takes great images with small, light lenses. Although I have the EF adapter, I rarely use it. I know my L glass would increase image quality but my 24-70 f/2.8 L II and 5D IV seem to be made for each other, so why break up a good act;-) This is all to say that Canon knows their market segments. Very few consumers will look at the EOS-M as a complement or backup to EOS-EF or RF. The vast numbers of consumers want an elegant camera system that just works. 

The mirror slappers will eventually go away and EF with it. When the time to switch is inevitable, we will all put the old stuff on the shelf with the Brownie.


----------



## photonius (Sep 3, 2018)

stefang said:


> Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?



Size! I'm very happy with my light-weight rebel body, and light EF-S 10-24, 18-55, 55-250 lenses. But I'm also happy to put the 100-400 L II, or a EF macro lens on that body. I'd never buy a 100-400 and matching RF body, just to be able to use a 100-400 lens. And I doubt Canon will create their whole lens lineup in duplicate mounts for RF and M.


----------



## olympus593 (Sep 3, 2018)

Something about this whole RF mount talk also tells me that EF-S is basically a dead-alive series, just for the entry-line segment, in other words, Rebel line.

Both 80D and 7D2 currently act as a bridge between 2 worlds, with better build quality and nice features for a reasonable price. The question that remain is: will there be mirrorless equivalents these cameras, since Canon split their mirrorless lineup in 2 distinct lines?

I can see a 7D-like camera with RF mount and APS-C or APS-H sensor, but I find no sense in having a feature heavy camera with EF-M mount.


----------



## VORON (Sep 3, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.


That's a common mistake. The stock photos of sensor are made from large distance, otherwise it's really difficult to make a good lighting. The lens projects the image on sensor from the distance of 18 mm. Even from 4 cm, the corners are obvious:


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 3, 2018)

It's an interesting dilemma. But I can see the EF-M line being perfectly safe in terms of sales potential if Canon chose to use it as their dedicated amateur/semi-pro video platform in addition to their consumer-grade stills cameras. Canon's APS-C sensors have a diameter of 26.82mm, and the Super35 2 perf format has a diameter of 26.58mm. In my mind, it's an ideal format for maximizing the image circle projection of the EF-M glass. Canon's DPAF is already the best in the business, so an ILC video camera accepting native EF-M glass with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio sounds like a significant opportunity to challenge Sony for the amateur video market. Canon has never been shy about product segregation anyhow, so I think an EF-M super35 video camera would be quite impressive in terms of frame rate, log recording, and color sampling.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 3, 2018)

stefang said:


> Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?


People who don't want all the drawbacks of FF !!

More expensive, less depth of field, more stability required (res for res), larger more expensive and heavier lenses, samee for bodies, the list goes on !

The camera companies need to sell new cameras, and maybe they now see FF as the way to do this, but I bet it doesn't last that long once the expense hits home.

And I am a FF user, but wouldn't consider myself typical of the majority of people who use a camera.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Huh. Sony E-mount is narrower than Canon EF-M mount (46.1mm vs. 46.5mm). If the Sony E-mount cameras can take full-frame FE lenses why can't EF-M bodies? Also, Sony users are complaining about vignetting and problems with wide-angle lenses with E-mount. Sony could have avoided that problem by using Konica-Minolta's wider A-mount (49.7mm diameter), which was designed for 35mm full-frame, unlike the E-mount which was designed for NEX-style compact ILCs. So I can also argue that Sony painted themselves into a corner by using a lens mount designed for small cameras and shoehorning full-frame lenses for it. Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.



Exactly this. I disagree that Canon should have used the "M" mount for this FF mirrorless, because they would have painted themselves in the same corner as Sony. Moving forward, both Canon and Nikon will be able to take advantage of the larger diameter RF and Z mounts respectively for their mirrorless systems, while Sony will remain constrained with the E-mount, due to its design being meant for crop sensor cameras; not full frame.

I do agree that there will be consumer confusion with Canon having four different lens systems, and they need to work quickly to correct this. As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful, but I still wonder whether the long-term plan is to eventually phase out the M system in favor of the RF system?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful,



Arguably ? You'd struggle to make any argument against that !


----------



## tmroper (Sep 3, 2018)

It seems to me that the EOS-M is inexpensive enough that most people who want one will be happy enough with one or two lenses, and use it for certain limited things only. It's not a "system" camera that can handle the whole spectrum of photo activities. You buy it and use it for what it is, not for dreaming about f/1.2 lenses, etc.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

stefang said:


> Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?


Yes - completely agree with this point as well.
I think we need to really think about the broader photography industry as not just limited to traditional cameras, but also cell phones.
Cell phones have taken over much of the point-and-shoot business, and as photography applications become more oriented to web applications (i.e. Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) there will be more and more people using cell phones as opposed to cameras when travelling. Cell phone cameras continue to get better for the "all-in-focus" type of shots, and are developing more software solutions to replicate key features produced by traditional cameras, such as bokeh.
This means that traditional camera companies must now further widen the gap between cell phones and traditional cameras - make the technology better, including faster speeds, more megapixels, better resolutions, etc in order to attract more casual buyers. I just don't see APS-C continuing to survive in this broader market. This is especially the case when a basic entry-level APS-C with basic-quality kit lens often produces a photo that is no better than a photo captured from a modern cell phone - sad, but true. You'll never see this issue on a FF.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Arguably ? You'd struggle to make any argument against that !


Not sure I follow.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 3, 2018)

I couldn't agree* less!* Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.

BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

olympus593 said:


> Cut the crap.
> 
> Pentax PK mount flange mount distance is 45.46mm, 1.46mm larger than EF (44mm) and there are many adapters out there, some with onboard electronics for compatibility with newer lenses. I use a "dumb" one with a PK 50mm f/1.2.



there's a problem with your logic. for starters the Pentax K mount is 44mm in diameter, which will fit INSIDE a larger EF mount of 54mm in diameter. An EF-M camera body is only 46mm, and a RF mount lens of 54mm in diameter will not fit inside unless you have control over space and time that I don't have. If it can't fit inside, it has to fit on TOP of the EF-M mount and expand outwards. But it also must have the necessary room for the lens to physically mount which requires an additional 3-4mm. There simply is not the room and space to do so.

I'm in a crap free zone over here, really.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 3, 2018)

c.d.embrey said:


> I couldn't agree* less!* Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.
> 
> BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.


how about if Canon makes a M2 camera body with mag alloy shoots 15fps, weather sealed, nice grip with an additional battery grip and sells it as the next step up on their mirrorless APS-C lineup.

assuming it's EF-M mount you don't have the lenses for it since it's all consumer stuff, so it forces you to buy EF mount, but you probably want to pre-buy RF mounts for your eventual prosumer move to full frame at a later date, so you want that 50mm 1.2L (which turns into a gobsmackingly nice 85mm 1.2 on the crop camera) or you may want the 35mm 1.8L for the same reason. In one case (EF-M mount body) you have consumer lenses and can still use EF-S/EF lenses. In another case (RF mount body) you have RF full frame lenses but have to use EF-S lenses. Neither case is optimal.

the problem is that fantasy body can't really exist with the partitioning that Canon has done with the RF mount and EF-M mount. It's a hot mess, *by design*.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 3, 2018)

VORON said:


> That's a common mistake. The stock photos of sensor are made from large distance, otherwise it's really difficult to make a good lighting. The lens projects the image on sensor from the distance of 18 mm. Even from 4 cm, the corners are obvious:



Your photo doesn't help because it is shot at an angle, and, in any case, my point was the EF-M mount can take an FF sensor if the smaller E-Mount can. Also, the vignetting & wide-angle corner problems caused by the E-Mount is well-known.


----------



## Andreos (Sep 3, 2018)

I don't know how this "rumor" business works, but I cant' shake the feeling that some the information we're all taking for granted will prove incorrect after the official announcement on the 5th. Hopefully things will make more sense and Canon's logic will be shown to be more integrated and customer-friendly. As it stands Canon looks poised to shoot themselves in foot quite seriously.


----------



## bhf3737 (Sep 3, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> It's an interesting dilemma. But I can see the EF-M line being perfectly safe in terms of sales potential if Canon chose to use it as their dedicated amateur/semi-pro video platform in addition to their consumer-grade stills cameras. Canon's APS-C sensors have a diameter of 26.82mm, and the Super35 2 perf format has a diameter of 26.58mm. In my mind, it's an ideal format for maximizing the image circle projection of the EF-M glass. Canon's DPAF is already the best in the business, so an ILC video camera accepting native EF-M glass with a 2.33:1 aspect ratio sounds like a significant opportunity to challenge Sony for the amateur video market. Canon has never been shy about product segregation anyhow, so I think an EF-M super35 video camera would be quite impressive in terms of frame rate, log recording, and color sampling.


Respectfully, perhaps you should consider the difference in aspect ratio in calculation, too. If I'm right, Canon APS-C sensor is 22.2(w)x14.8(h) mm and Super 35 is 24.6(w)x13.8(h) mm, that is, Super 35 sensor is a bit larger in width. Therefore APS-C image circle may not fully cover the Super 35 sensor, unless M lenses are built with larger image circle, which is quite likely. However, lens makers don't publish the image circle info so we won't be sure about that. Since Super 35mm is slightly larger than APS-C, in principle, using an APS-C lens while shooting in Super 35mm mode does not seem to be practical, without further tweaks.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Sep 3, 2018)

> the problem is that fantasy body can't really exist with the partitioning that Canon has done with the RF mount and EF-M mount. It's a hot mess, *by design*.



It's not a hot mess if it is designed to segment the market for broad consumer needs. We want cameras to be like hand tools. Buy a good socket set and it will work forever and continue to work for the grandchildren some day. If we think about cameras as TVs and other consumer products, including cars, then the RF mount and M mount are what's needed in this current market.


----------



## traveller (Sep 3, 2018)

c.d.embrey said:


> I couldn't agree* less!* Ditching the FD lens mount allowed Canon to leave Nikon in the dust—R mount could do the same to Nikon's Z.



The EF mount is technically superior to the F mount by virtue of it enjoying the benefits of a quarter of a century’s development of SLR camera technology. Because it is so much more recent, it incorporated technologies from day 1 that didn’t exist even in the wildest dreams of camera designers in the late 1950s. Nikon’s F mount took two decades to catch up (basically getting there with the latest ‘E’ types lenses), but is still limited by its smaller throat diameter. 

The Z mount is evidently Nikon’s response to thirty years of perceived inferiority on their part, they’ve really gone to the extreme with the mount specification, making sure that they now have the biggest diameter and the shortest flange focal distance of the “big three”. Canon’s RF mount is in no way superior to Nikon Z. 



c.d.embrey said:


> BTW I can not see any reason that I'd want to put a big/bulky R 50mm f/1.2 lens on a petite EOS M body. YMMV.



Whilst with this lens in particular, not just the size but the (probable) price would be off putting for APS-C users, there will presumably be future smaller and cheaper RF mount lenses that might be more attractive. As several people have pointed out, anyone with future ambitions to buy into a full frame camera system might want to chose full frame compatible lenses. I know that when I had a Canon APS-C camera, I was careful to chose EF over EF-S lenses for all but my ultra-wide requirements. This made the decision to stick with Canon much easier to make when I upgraded to the 5D Mark III. If none of my lenses were compatible with Canon’s full frame cameras, I would have had a clean sheet and probably wouldn’t be writing this post as I’d be on Nikon Rumors b**ching about the Z7


----------



## Yasko (Sep 3, 2018)

Well, I dont own EF-M lenses and noone can be bought in EF-M by an amount that it would really matter to him financially. If you had every EF-M lens that there is (all for crop and you knew that when you bought them), then you lived with the knowledge you would have to buy full frame lenses.
You cant use EF-S on FF DSLRs. You can‘t use EF-M on FF MILCs. Ok.
So crop will be an opportunity for EF-M, or it is just a mount for the more consumer end of MILCs that Canon offers...


----------



## sebakunstpaul (Sep 3, 2018)

from the series "how to shoot yourself in the leg" ...


----------



## Dradis (Sep 3, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> "It is impossible for this mount to be adapted to the new RF full frame mount"
> Why would you want a EF-M lens that only fills up an APS-C area on a full frame mount? EF-S also can't be used on EF and nobody batted an eye yet.
> The new mount tho, lets you use EF, EF-S and probably also FD soon.



I think the issue here is that if canon ever makes an APS sensor ILC with an RF mount, older EF-M lenses will not be usable. Unlike current EF users, if this happens EF-M users would not be able to keep using their lenses. 

I see 3 possibilities, none of which are good for EF-M users. 
1) canon keeps using EF-M for APS cameras. EF-M users will no longer have the choice of using new full frame lenses (once EF fades out)
2) canon ditches EF-M in favor of RF. EF-M users can’t bring their old lenses to the new cameras. 
3) canon makes a new “RF-S” to replace EF-M similar to EF-S. Same down sides as 2. 

I think the EOS-M line was a kind of experimental attempt at mirrorless. I think the R line will stick and and it’s just too bad for M users.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 3, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Respectfully, perhaps you should consider the difference in aspect ratio in calculation, too. If I'm right, Canon APS-C sensor is 22.2(w)x14.8(h) mm and Super 35 is 24.6(w)x13.8(h) mm, that is, Super 35 sensor is a bit larger in width. Therefore APS-C image circle may not fully cover the Super 35 sensor, unless M lenses are built with larger image circle, which is quite likely. However, lens makers don't publish the image circle info so we won't be sure about that. Since Super 35mm is slightly larger than APS-C, in principle, using an APS-C lens while shooting in Super 35mm mode does not seem to be practical, without further tweaks.



I would imagine the wider focal lengths of current EF-M lenses would struggle. The EF-M 11-22mm for example, suffers up to -3 stops of light in the corners wide open at 11mm. Normal and short/mid telephoto lenses don't seem prone to the same amount of vignetting, so it's possible that most of the EF-M glass would perform well enough. Although Canon would almost certainly create a higher quality line of lenses for an EF-M super35 video platform if they pursued that route, since a dedicated video camera would likely be much higher-end in terms of electronic components than standard EOS M stills cameras (hence demanding more proprietary lenses for video work). Probably similar to what they did with the tilt-shift lenses for the EF line; only EF-M video lenses wouldn't just have a larger image circle, they would also likely include a t-stop ring as well as a separate textured focus ring.


----------



## traveller (Sep 3, 2018)

Yasko said:


> Well, I dont own EF-M lenses and noone can be bought in EF-M by an amount that it would really matter to him financially. If you had every EF-M lens that there is (all for crop and you knew that when you bought them), then you lived with the knowledge you would have to buy full frame lenses.
> You cant use EF-S on FF DSLRs. You can‘t use EF-M on FF MILCs. Ok.
> So crop will be an opportunity for EF-M, or it is just a mount for the more consumer end of MILCs that Canon offers...



Whilst there is truth in what you are saying, the point of having full frame lenses that mount onto APS-C bodies is to capture and lock in _future_ full frame users _before_ they have even purchased their first full frame body. If the user knows they need to sell _all_ their lenses (and that their current APS-C body is of no further use), they are much more free to consider competitors systems. Perhaps that is good for Canon EOS-R system users, as Canon will have to make damned sure that they win any future spec sheet war!


----------



## Tangent (Sep 3, 2018)

Canon ef-s body can use EF lenses without an adapter
Canon ef-m body can use EF and EF-S lenses with a Canon adapter
Canon RF body can use EF and EF-s lenses with a Canon adapter

That looks like pretty good compatibility to me.

ef-m lenses can not be used on RF. Well, ef-s lenses can not be used on EF FF. I don't think getting crop lenses to work (in some sort of crop mode) on FF bodies has ever been a priority for Canon. The RF body will take ef-s lenses via an the adapter because there is room for it, so why not toss in compatibility? For my needs, using a crop lens on a FF body is something I would not want to do much anyway.

It has been a trend to slow down on ef-s lens introductions for a long time already. Long lenses will continue to be EF lenses for the indefinite future, as evidenced by the new BWL's. No EF lens -- or EF-s lens, for that matter -- will ever be orphaned -- they will work with all future ef-m and RF bodies (via adapters). Again, pretty good compatibility.

The problem in the midrange is that ef-m lenses so far are designed to be small as possible. What we need for an enthusiast M body is something like a 15-70 f4 ef-m lens of high optical quality. The 15-70 f4 ef-m quasi-L would be big for an ef_m lens, but still more compact than a 24-105 EF or RF lens: just the thing to kit with a future M5mk II or M7 (a mirrorless 7d series). ...Actually, that 15-70 f4 IS quasi-L EF-M lens sounds pretty darn good!  Canon, please steal my idea! (And *DON'T* go 3.5-5.6 on us).  This is one EF-M lens that should be designed for performance first, compactness as a secondary consideration. (To go small just use the existing EF-M 15-45 3.5-6.3 IS.)

Only Canon knows what future dslr bodies they will make. I suppose they will make more dslr bodies as long as demand is sufficient. But the end game is to wind up with new ef-m bodies and new RF bodies only. Maybe a decade or more from now the last new dslr will be announced, and it will be a poignant day, as it was when film bodies died. New EF lenses will probably be made for an even longer time, because if the shorter throw of the RF format is not needed it still makes sense to make lenses that can be used by both ef-m and RF camera bodies, as well as the EF and EF-S legacy cameras which will still be out there.

I think all the hand-wringing on this issue is a little bit too melodramatic, but ymmv.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful...


Nikon may have 'officially' discontinued the 1 series in July, but the last camera in the series came out in 2015.

As for the EOS M being 'arguably more successful', the Nikon one was a commercial flop, the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally. To claim the EOS M is 'arguably more successful' is disingenuous at best, but arguably just an asinine statement.


----------



## traveller (Sep 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon may have 'officially' discontinued the 1 series in July, but the last camera in the series came out in 2015.
> 
> As for the EOS M being 'arguably more successful', the Nikon one was a commercial flop, the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally. To claim the EOS M is 'arguably more successful' is disingenuous at best, but arguably just an asinine statement.



But the irony is that Nikon 1 being a flop has given Nikon the opportunity to start with a clean sheet and a better mount without alienating a large slice of their user base. Whether they follow through on this is a different matter.


----------



## efmshark (Sep 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The short answer is that if the EF-M mount was capable of using RF lenses with an adaptor then there would have been precisely zero benefit in using the RF mount over using FF EF-M mount to begin with. Ie it may be possible assuming you're a genius with enginering to physically adapt the lenses assuming the rear elements fit, but it'd vignette like crazy.




Despite the claims in the original article, EF-M mount is capable of using RF lenses with an adaptor. Even though the flange distance difference is only 2mm, a significant part of the adapter can go inside the EF-M camera and around the RF lens, so it is possible the design some kind of an adaptor. This adaptor would only need pass through electrical signals, and the pins being at different radial distance may actually help the wiring.

Of course, there is always possibility for adaptors with built in optics. In this particular case, a speed booster adaptor that would keep the original angle of view of the RF lens but provide a 1 f-stop boost would be particularly interesting.

However, such an adapter would only be useful for supporting a APS-C size sensor.

The reason Canon designed the RF mount is to support a full frame sensor.


----------



## riker (Sep 4, 2018)

Two thoughts.
1) Maybe on the long run EF-M will be for APS-C and RF for full frame and that's it. And the whole world will be MILC, DSLR is the past.

2) I see a whole lot bigger, forgotten debate behind this current situation. The whole question of the APS-C industry and how Canon never got serious about it. I have used EF lenses on APS-C bodies for almost a decade (2001-2009) until I bought 5Dmk2, simply because L lenses only existed with EF mount. It meant carrying the extra weight and size of a full frame lens even though the sensor only used a portion of it. Lots of back pain, airport problems, sweating on Africa's dirty roads and whatever.
Problem still not solved after almost 20 years. Even though we have 7Dmk2 which is kind of a serious camera, we still don't have appropriate EF-S lenses. If you have an EF-S or EF-M body, most likely you will end up using some EF L lenses instead of having their EF-S or EF-M counterparts which would be smaller, cost less and weigh less. They don't exist. OK, there are some decent ones like EF-M 11-22 and 22/2 but compared to the most popular L lenses, they have practically nothing. Which is a HUGE problem and a HUGE question mostly along the lines of WTF.
My bet is that this is all just bussiness. They were protecting full-farme with the EF L lenses. A big part of the world just would have stayed/switch at/to APS-C in case of the existence of EF-S L lenses. Which also means I'm not expecting much on the EF-M line. Very sad.
Writing this mostly because now I see people worry of not being able to use FF lenses on APS-C bodies. Hey people! That is wrong in he first place! It's very wrong that we had to get used to that!


----------



## slclick (Sep 4, 2018)

Canon still has 47 less mounts than Nikon.


----------



## bks54 (Sep 4, 2018)

I believe Canon has clear design specifications for the EOS M system that they never have and never will stray from. Small, lightweight, mid-price APS-C bodies, small (60.9 mm diameter) lenses. You can adapt EF/EF-S if you wish. That is it. The system is nearly complete; perhaps they’ll release a few more wider aperture primes, and maybe an f4 zoom if they can make one only 60.9mm wide. It’s not meant to be a gateway drug to full- frame. I think an RF to EF-M adapter could be engineered for at least some of the new lenses but I don’t think Canon will bother because most EOS-M buyers won’t care.


----------



## miketcool (Sep 4, 2018)

efmshark said:


> The reason Canon designed the RF mount is to support a full frame sensor.



And support future medium format Canon bodies.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> That isn't the issue at all. It's the reverse.
> 
> Think about at the moment. You get an 80D and you buy some lenses. Let's look at someone who bought an EF-S 18-55, an EF-S 10-18, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-300 IS non-L zoom. Maybe your later lens choices were in part driven by knowing the lenses are future-proof if you decide to switch to FF.
> 
> ...


Soooo you didn't read my post at all. You just got to that first sentence and began to reply. LOL I basically say the exact same thing and agree with you. Right now the only reason you would buy an EF-M lens is to stay small and know you can't use it on any other camera. If you plan to upgrade, you have to buy EF lenses because those will work on everything...knowing Canon, this is intentional.


----------



## CanonFan (Sep 4, 2018)

As folks say, we are used to a world where EF-S doesn't work on FF , but APS-C can use both EF and EF-S.

I use an 80D with both EF-S and EF lenses --in fact my gear is close to what @jolyonralph said, only my zoom is a 70-300L series and I use an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 which is terrific for low light (plus a few others in addition...) I am very happy with a crop sensor --if the 7D is upgraded I may go that way, or I may stay with the 80D which works hard and well for me. Being able to put both EF-S and EF lenses on my body gives me the best of both worlds.

I recently purchased an M50 for a second body, with the kit 18-45 M-series and an EF adapter. Love how small and light it is to be able to drop in a briefcase and leave it. It is like a miniaturized 80D. I have recently used it as my second camera at a couple of events, using my EF/S lenses particularly the 50mm 1.4 via adapter. This has worked well, though the small body would be quickly overwhelmed by really big lenses. I am tempted by the 22mm prime just to make it a very small street camera, and for sure it would be my preferred travel body. So I think there will continue to be a place for a limited selection of M lenses and adapters to allow, well, adaptation.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

so funny. all the drama, whrn everything is totally logical and clear.

Canon goes from 2 mounts in the mirrorslapper past to 2 mounts in the mirrorfree future. they do not compromise on lens mounts. Not in 1987, not today. one thing i really like about them.

1 perfectly chosen mount for compact APS-C cameras and a limited selection of decent and compact lenses. And 1 optimally chosen mount for great FF cameras and a full lens lineup to match. No problem whatsoever. and smooth transition from EF to RF.

Nikon looks set to go with only 1 mount for both FF and APS-C. thats one of the reasons they went with only 16mm FFD - to allow for "slim"
APS-C cameras as well.

but back to Canon: so we cant use EF- M crop lenses on full frame R cameras? OMG! who cares, it is a stupid idea to start with. dont tell me using a crop lens on FF sensor "in crop mode" yields better IQ than just doing the crop in post.

and as for RF to EF- M adapter, why should that not be possible? After all renown german maker Novoflex makes precise 2.5mm adapters for use of Nikon F lenses(46.5mm FFD) on Canon EF mount (44mm). they even manage to fit mechanical aperture control on the little contraption. so why should a canon RF to Canon EF-M 2mm adapter with wiring through and possibly a chip/firmware in it for protocol translation not be possible? although it also makes rather limited sense to stick a 28-70/2.0 on an EOS M50.

most of the adapter and cross-use angst postings are from folks worrying about residual/second-hand value of their (soon) legacy EF lenses. nothing else.

Canon is doing the right thing here and they do it boldly. wish they would be as bold with their mirrorfree FF cameras!


----------



## Respinder (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon may have 'officially' discontinued the 1 series in July, but the last camera in the series came out in 2015.
> 
> As for the EOS M being 'arguably more successful', the Nikon one was a commercial flop, the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally. To claim the EOS M is 'arguably more successful' is disingenuous at best, but arguably just an asinine statement.



Hmm that's strange. According to NPD Group and Amazon, Sony is the best selling mirrorless, so not sure what you are talking about? While I know the Canon M series has been successful (i.e. same thing what I said above - not sure how it is asinine?), I never felt that it was going in any serious direction versus what Sony has been doing with E-mount (i.e. more lens selection, etc.). 

I agree with what Traveller said as well - although Nikon 1 did fail, it did give Nikon a very clear path for what to do with mirrorless. With Canon, it is quite messy - very fragmented with many lines (EF, EF-S, EF-M, EF-RF), and the market simply cannot support it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

We should also consider that Canon may believe the 'problems' are minor and/or irrelevant. 

Anecdotally, the use of EF lenses on APS-C bodies prior to a FF upgrade certainly occurs. There are examples on this forum, myself included. But is that typical/common? I know I'm far from typical – I had the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the 85/1.2L II, the 100-400L, and the 24-105/4L IS with the 7D, prior to getting the 5DII. 

I wonder how many Canon APS-C owners upgrade to FF, how many have EF lenses when they do, and how many of those were lower IQ lenses that were replaced L lenses after the upgrade. But...whereas I can only wonder, Canon has the data. In light of those data, there maybe no real problem from their perspective.


----------



## meywd (Sep 4, 2018)

There is a chance that both M and RF are special lenses mounts, while EF will stay as the general purpose mount, we will have 3 lineups:

M: small and compact, good for amateurs, travel, low weight constraints

R: Super lenses with mirrorless benefits, medium size, good for prosumers, backup to the main lineup

D (EF): the usual form for all users, currently DSLR and when the mirrorless is good enough convert to mirrorless with the same size, the pros will have their big and strong bodies with weather sealing and better handling with big whites


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

Respinder said:


> With Canon, it is quite messy - very fragmented with many lines (EF, EF-S, EF-M, EF-RF), and the market simply cannot support it.



what?! it is totally clear cut. EF plus EF-S will transition to RF plus EF-M. 
only during transitional period will there be current lenses in 4 mounts. EF-S will soon be legacy, EF will follow.

totally clear and logical. optimal mounts for different sensor sizes and camera types (different flange focal distance requirements). 

there will be no mirrorfree FF bodies with EF nozzle. silver-colored "RF snout" is bad enough as it is.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> what?! it is totally clear cut. EF plus EF-S will transition to RF plus EF-M.
> only during transitional period will there be current lenses in 4 mounts. EF-S will soon be legacy, EF will follow.
> 
> totally clear and logical. optimal mounts for different sensor sizes and camera types (different flange focal distance requirements).
> ...


I hope you're right


----------



## bod (Sep 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> In one of the other multitude of RF threads I raised exactly the same issue about "where does this leave the 7D?"
> 
> I think we all know the answer is that there won't be an APS-C sensor RF body, and those wanting to use lenses on both an M series and an R series camera are stuck with EF lenses and adaptors on both bodies.



Pleased to be reading this thread as I have been contemplating the same topics over the weekend since the details leaked about the new EOS R mount. In particular I want to move to EVF - mirrorless bodies but I am trying to work out a plan to replace my current FF (6D) plus APSC (7DII) bodies. As suggested as a possibility in the Canon news article my first thought was that the future will involve a high resolution mirrorless body which I can use in either a FF or cropped mode. I think it is likely that a high resolution RF body will be Canon's next release.

I also agree that I see the attraction of the M lineup as keeping it small and light. I had wondered which way Canon would go with the FF mirrorless but now knowing the RF lens lineup "smaller and lighter" is definitely not the case, Canon instead offering faster lenses. 

I read the observations raised in the Canon news article about starting off in an M world and not being able to migrate to FF whilst continuing to use ones existing lenses. However I am not sure how large a sector this is of the customer base. For example users who want to stay small could just stick with the M lineup in view of the impressive performance of modern APSC sensors. Users like me ( I have the EOS M and EFM 22) who want a body which is easy to drop in a pocket will have one M body and limited lenses as an add on to their kit. For users who want to migrate to a FF system then the invested value in a few EFM lenses is not great anyway compared to the cost of purchasing a FF body and FF EF or RF lenses. 

My question though is in response to your statement "there wont be an APSC sensor RF body". I agree that Canon could very well decide to offer just a high resolution RF body instead. However is there any technical reason why there could not be an APSC sensor RF body which could be used with RF lenses or EF lenses plus adaptor?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 4, 2018)

So in stupid mirrorslapper world full frame lenses can mount on aps-c bodies without any adaptor but in our future mirror-free utopia full frame lenses can't be mounted on aps-c bodies even with an adaptor because the mechanical clearances are too small to allow an adaptor to fit between the lens and body. Totally clear and logical.


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 4, 2018)

I don't see the problem. I didn't expect to use M lenses on the R, or R lenses on the M.


----------



## dsut4392 (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> We should also consider that Canon may believe the 'problems' are minor and/or irrelevant.
> 
> Anecdotally, the use of EF lenses on APS-C bodies prior to a FF upgrade certainly occurs. There are examples on this forum, myself included. But is that typical/common? I know I'm far from typical – I had the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the 85/1.2L II, the 100-400L, and the 24-105/4L IS with the 7D, prior to getting the 5DII.
> 
> I wonder how many Canon APS-C owners upgrade to FF, how many have EF lenses when they do, and how many of those were lower IQ lenses that were replaced L lenses after the upgrade. But...whereas I can only wonder, Canon has the data. In light of those data, there maybe no real problem from their perspective.



Canon has the data on what lenses and bodies they have sold, but the only data they have on who has bought them comes from the subset of people who return the warranty registration card, who may or may not be a representative sample. 
I think it's also important to consider that Canon isn't discontinuing EF, so anyone who wants to buy an L-series lens to mount to their M body can still do so in the comfort of knowing that lens will mount on an RF body in the future if they upgrade to FF. No, you won't be able to mount an RF lens to an M body, but that is a very small proportion of the lens catalogue that is affected, for much of which there are decent EF alternatives.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 4, 2018)

Bambel said:


> I don't get why Canon should ditch its EF-M mount/line of lenses. The initial FR-lenses are the opposit of EF-M lenses. Chunky and expensive (L!) vs. cheap and plasticy. M is cheap, small, light and even if there is only one M lens released each year that's enough IMO. i also don't think that EF lenses are an endangered species as long as people buy them. EF-S the same: Canon has developed a lot of lenses and can sell them until no one wants them anymore, but given their much lower price than (crop adjusted) EF lenses and the cheaper crop bodys they will sell for some time to come.
> 
> But: i'm not so sure how successfull R lenses will be. The beauty of adapting EF lenses is that it's electronics only, compared to Nikons numerous F-flavors with mechanics and all that. I've been shooting Canon crop bodys for 12 years now and never considered FF because most of the time i focus to something off center and a 6D has a narrow AF point spread and a 5D is too expensive for this amateur. But this R sounds very interesting to me because slow fps but a large AF area is just what i need. But i would not consider buying a R lense like the 24-105 if i can get the more flexible EF version for a similar price or even lower when bought used.
> 
> ...


Very valid point about potential discontinuance of any of the current existing lenses. As long as their is sufficient demand, Canon will keep making them. It's called the rule of supply and demand. Glad you made this point.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Sep 4, 2018)

It is all speculation on our part that there won't be the possibility of mounting and RF lens on an M body. However, I have little interest in mounting big glass on my M50. I prefer to keep the small form factor small.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Technically they probably can, with an EdMika-like conversion. Certainly not a commercially viable solution.
> 
> I'm really puzzled by Canon's disregard of the EOS M to EOS R upgrade path via pre-buying lenses.
> 
> Still, perhaps this is an indication that Canon doesn't intend a full RF lens lineup, and will keep the RF line limited in scope and eventually release EF FF MILCs.



If Canon releases EF FF MILC, it will be last nail in the coffin of the EF-R and would be simply hilarious. I know it sounds logical, but imagine the situation - two FF bodies, one as a backup. Would you buy any expensive EF-R lens, if it can't be used on the FF EF body too? I would not and would buy it in reverse - EF lens, which can be adapted to EF-R.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2018)

Typical forum discussion. People getting their panties all in a twist before the cameras/lenses are even released. 

I really don't see the problem. EF lenses remain the foundation of Canon's lens system. That's going to be the case for at least the next decade and probably longer. Canon makes three specialized mounts, one for crop DLSRs, one for crop mirrorless and, now, one for full-frame mirrorless. Those lenses are matched to the formats. I imagine that Canon's market research shows that this won't be a problem for most users.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> In one of the other multitude of RF threads I raised exactly the same issue about "where does this leave the 7D?"
> 
> I think we all know the answer is that there won't be an APS-C sensor RF body, and those wanting to use lenses on both an M series and an R series camera are stuck with EF lenses and adaptors on both bodies.




Pure speculation: perhaps the new 7D could be the pro mirrorless 5 series we all assume is coming, but with a crop mode that boosts frame rate to 12.


----------



## elkatro (Sep 4, 2018)

While EF lenses can be directly mounted on Canon APS-C cameras, somehow Canon decided otherwises for RF lenses to EOS-M bodies. This is where the problem lies, people cannot carry an R body, and M body as a backup, with a set of RF lenses only


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 4, 2018)

Not mounting EF-M on RF is borderline whining. EF-S can't be mounted on EF either, and mounting crop lenses on EF (3rd party on Canon, DX on FX on Nikon) never impressed me as popular either. When I upgraded from 450D to 5Dmk2, I upgraded the EF-S 10-22mm to EF 17-40mm, and the sky didn't fall.

People do use long lenses on 7D, so the RF to EOS-M compatibility is a good point.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 4, 2018)

It is same as existing EF-S lens compatibility with EF. Not possible to mount EF-S lens on FF. But FF EF lens can be mounted on crop body. Is there any adapter to mount EF-R lens to EF-M body.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 4, 2018)

ritholtz said:


> It is same as existing EF-S lens compatibility with EF. Not possible to mount EF-S lens on FF. But FF EF lens can be mounted on crop body. Is there any adapter to mount EF-R lens to EF-M body.



That's much less of an issue, I mean you can mount APSC lenses on FF Nikon DSLR's but theres not really a massive market for it due to the limited coverage. On the other hand you have people who shoot APSC that own FF lenses either due to their not being an APSC option(or it being no real advantage) and to potentially allow for an upgrade.

What I would say is that I think this is less of an issue on mirrorless simply because fewer people tend to shoot with tele lenses there than on DSPR which is the most likely area APSC users will own FF lenses. Indeed I suspect that Canon and Nikon will largely look to depend on adapted DSLR lenses for their tele use on mirrorless in the near future.

One thing I think this does highlight is that a small mirrroless mount for FF must be a significant disadvantage, its one thing for Nikon to introduce a larger mount without it introducing compatibility issues, its quite another for Canon to do so with the EF-M system already there. My guess is that long term we'll see its not just a case of ultra fast lenses but rather general lens performance, especially if we ever see Sigma style 3 layer sensors introduced that will likely be very unforgiving of light hitting the sensor at extreme angles.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 4, 2018)

In a few years EF-M and EF-S will be on lifesupport. As big as canon are, they still need to focus on that one mount. EF will have a drawn out death depending on how quickly people migrate to RF, I'd say it will take about a decade and then canon will tell us that there will be no more development of EF mount products. Any lenses released in that timeframe will be designed with the RF adapter in mind though.
Unless sensor manufacturing costs go down, I would expect the future to hold a couple of APS-C bodies. Also, it seems to me that the 7D line has been popular enough that a mirrorless equivalent could be justified.


----------



## Daner (Sep 4, 2018)

stefang said:


> Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?



APS-C still plays a role for those who have use for smaller size and lower cost alternatives that can still provide good IQ.

When my aspirations outgrew the 1000D, I purchased a 70D. When I wanted more control over the focus point and flicker-free shots while shooting sports, I sold my 70D and picked up a used 7D Mk II. I also found a used EF-S 18-135 (Nano USM) that is a wonderful all-around lens that has no meaningful FF equivalent. If I need something brighter for close shots, I have the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. For portrait work I got a used EF 85 f/1.8. For longer shots I got a used EF 200 f/2.8 L II (longest black L prime, 320mm equivalent on APS-C) which works very well for concerts and events, but which does not draw attention like a big white. My latest addition was a new EF-S 10-18, which cost much less than what I would have had to pay for an equivalent EF 16-35.

Before my next safari trip I plan to add the EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II and a 1.4 III extender, which when combined on my 7D Mk II will give me a reach out to very nearly 900mm.

While adding a FF or EOS R at some point in the future is certainly within my plans, I will keep an APS-C body and many of my EF-S lenses, as they will still be useful.


----------



## padam (Sep 4, 2018)

Super 35mm (with EF mount) is also the industry standard for video production. So no, EF-S won't disappear at all (if anything, it actually kind of revived a bit with the DPAF technology).
And EF-M will continue, albeit with limited appeal, as they won't bother making a FF camera and lenses with that mount. And for now, they are probably not considering crop sensor RF cameras either. They may adapt to the market if they find that necessary, they can do many things, like a mirrorless 200D successor if they want to.
But what they are certainly not doing is hosting an emergency meeting, because this article emerged. They have widened their product range even more in recent years (even making cheap cameras with ancient Digic 4 processors) and it works for them. End of story.


----------



## Raja Baruah (Sep 4, 2018)

Canon fails to offer us the mirroless benifits i.e. Light weight lenses,IBIS etc.etc. Now I am confused why Canon is creating an another mount (RF) when they are not offering any special over light weight dslrs like my 6D mkIi !!


----------



## vjlex (Sep 4, 2018)

elkatro said:


> While EF lenses can be directly mounted on Canon APS-C cameras, somehow Canon decided otherwises for RF lenses to EOS-M bodies. This is where the problem lies, people cannot carry an R body, and M body as a backup, with a set of RF lenses only



Or put another way, EF lenses can mount to 4 body types. RF lenses can mount to one and only one.

I started out on APS-C. I got my first L Lens before eventually going full-frame. And at times now, yes, I slap my huge 24-70 L on my compact M3. Not always, but sometimes. And I like having the option to do it. Sometimes, there's things the 24-70 can capture that the 22mm just can't. I imagine that there are many who dip their toe into photography via APS-C before deciding that they want to jump into the deep end. I'm awaiting the official announcement like everyone else, but I'm not sold on the RF system or logic of slapping a '?' on EF's long-term future (and yes, resale value).


----------



## noncho (Sep 4, 2018)

Cheaper, smaller and lighter EF-M system is welcome for many people, so I like this separation with the RF.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

bod said:


> I read the observations raised in the Canon news article about starting off in an M world and not being able to migrate to FF whilst continuing to use ones existing lenses. However I am not sure how large a sector this is of the customer base. For example users who want to stay small could just stick with the M lineup in view of the impressive performance of modern APSC sensors. Users like me ( I have the EOS M and EFM 22) who want a body which is easy to drop in a pocket will have one M body and limited lenses as an add on to their kit. For users who want to migrate to a FF system then the invested value in a few EFM lenses is not great anyway compared to the cost of purchasing a FF body and FF EF or RF lenses.



exactly! agree 100%



bod said:


> However is there any technical reason why there could not be an APSC sensor RF body which could be used with RF lenses or EF lenses plus adaptor?



no technical reason whatsoever. Any size sensor smaller than and up to 36x24mm could be served by RF mount. Downside would be crop camera bodies and crop lenses that are not as compact as they could be with a smaller mount [like EF-M].

Throughout the DSLR era Canon has used to mount variants to optimize FF and APS-C systems in terms of optical performance and size/weight/price. With RF mount it is clear they have decided to continue this 2-mount approach also for the mirrorfree future. There is no danger at all for EF-M. But the lineup will remain as limited as EF-S is/was. No problem. Small, light, cheap = EF-M. Big, heavy, expensive = RF. 

Sony decided to go 1 mount only and use APS-C E mount also for FF sensor. They and their customers have to live with the consequences of that decision. Amongst other unwanted effects like more complex, heavy and expensive lens deigns I do not think we'll ever see lenses like a Sony FE 85/1.2 or a 28-70/2.0. And even less so a 58/0.95 [although I personally doubt the necessity of such a lens].

In line with their DSLR history [1 mount, F-mount with FX and DX lenses] Nikon seems set to also go with 1 mount ("Z") for mirrorfree as well, but opposed to Sony they would use the large FF-optimized Z-mount also for APS-C cameras. Downside to that approach is that APS-C camera bodies are not possible in a very compact format, due to the physically large mount opening.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

ritholtz said:


> Is there any adapter to mount EF-R lens to EF-M body.



No. It is way too early. But unlike the drama queen article author I don't see why such a 2mm adapter should not be technically possible. Whether Canon or will (ever) bring one out or not remains to be seen. I definitely expect it from third parties - eventually.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> exactly! agree 100%
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is a clear difference between the EF + EF-S strategy and the EF-M + RF strategy idea proposed by many here though. EF and EF-S *mount *is exactly the same, the difference is in the optics which for EF-S protrude closer to the sensor. EF-M and RF *mounts* are different by design and seemingly incompatible with eachother. If the RF mount is going to be canon's main mount, and it seems like it judging by the lenses released, keeping EF-M makes as much sense as keeping the FD mount after EF was introduced.

Historically, there have been few examples of manufacturers supporting more than one mount in the long term. We have Leica M and Leica R but Leica have always been a premium brand which puts it in a very different position relative to Canon. They still discontinued the R mount. We have Fuji, Pentax and Hasselblads various medium format mounts, but again medium format is a premium niche. And Hasselblad still slowly moved away from older mounts.

Z-mount and RF mount will allow for APS-C bodies that are compact enough, as opposed to "very compact". Sure, the smaller EF-M mount and APS-C sensor allows for a slightly smaller total package but then m43 allows for even smaller and compacts can be smaller still.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

PerKr said:


> . EF and EF-S *mount *is exactly the same, the difference is in the optics which for EF-S protrude closer to the sensor. EF-M and RF *mounts* are different by design


yes. As mandated by laws of optics. 



PerKr said:


> and seemingly incompatible with each other.


Remains to be seen. A 2mm adapter for RF-lenses on EF-M mount may be possible. 
And using crop lenses like EF-M on FF-sensors like RF is of little practical interest. People able to buy EOS R FF cameras will also be able to either at least buy 24-105 kit with it ... or EF lenses either new or for little money second hand as soon as many early RF adopters dump them. I expect a number of EF 24-70/2.8 II lenses to hit ebay once RF 28-70/2.0 becomes available. ;-)



PerKr said:


> keeping EF-M makes as much sense as keeping the FD mount after EF was introduced.


Not comparable. EF-M and EOS-M will stay around for many years to come. And FD lenses may well see a second life on EOS R cameras.



PerKr said:


> Z-mount and RF mount will allow for APS-C bodies that are compact enough, as opposed to "very compact". Sure, the smaller EF-M mount and APS-C sensor allows for a slightly smaller total package


well, Canon [and myself ] appreciate the option to build VERY COMPACT EOS M APS-C cameras and EF-M lenses.


----------



## LDS (Sep 4, 2018)

If sales are good, Canon could keep the M line for those looking for compact, light, small cameras and lenses. It doesn't also need an extensive lens lineup - a few zoom covering from 11 to 200-250mm and a few faster primes (for street photographers or the like) will be enough. It could be 10-12 lenses at most. With little reasons to mount them on a R APS-C body, if it ever arrives.

It is true Nikon 1 series was a failure, still Canon could keep the M line as an alternative to some m43 cameras and even some Fuji APS-C compact models.

Compatibility across lens lines could be good, but it could also lead to bad compromises for future developments. Nikon in an attempt to keep lens compatibility for far too long lost to Canon and its "disruptive" EF line.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But unlike the drama queen article author I don't see why such a 2mm adapter should not be technically possible.


Take an EF lens. Take a ruler. Remove the back cap from the lens. Measure how deep the bayonet tabs protrude into the body from the flange.



fullstop said:


> Whether Canon or will (ever) bring one out or not remains to be seen. I definitely expect it from third parties - eventually.


Yeah, because if Canon cannot warp space, third parties definitely can.


----------



## traveller (Sep 4, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Typical forum discussion. People getting their panties all in a twist before the cameras/lenses are even released.



Quite, but a discussion that you just couldn’t resist joining.... all good fun! 



unfocused said:


> I really don't see the problem. EF lenses remain the foundation of Canon's lens system. That's going to be the case for at least the next decade and probably longer. Canon makes three specialized mounts, one for crop DLSRs, one for crop mirrorless and, now, one for full-frame mirrorless. Those lenses are matched to the formats. I imagine that Canon's market research shows that this won't be a problem for most users.



I doubt that Canon plans to be releasing new EF mount lenses in ten years time. In under four years, Sony managed to move from the first generation A7 (and A7r) with their flakey handling and operational characteristics, to the third gen A9 that is already gaining traction with certain groups of professionals (in particular, those for whom the silent shutter and/or 20fps is critical). 

I suspect that Canon will have their pro-level EOS R body released ready for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, probably alongside a 1DX Mark 3. L-series lenses (especially the “big whites”) not released by then will almost certainly not have another EF mount version. Somewhere at HQ, I imagine that Canon has plan to migrate EF mount users to mirrorless that’s supported by charts of data predicting which groups they expect to switch with each new EOS R model they release.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 4, 2018)

traveller said:


> I suspect that Canon will have their pro-level EOS R body released ready for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, probably alongside a 1DX Mark 3. L-series lenses (especially the “big whites”) not released by then will almost certainly not have another EF mount version. Somewhere at HQ, I imagine that Canon has plan to migrate EF mount users to mirrorless that’s supported by charts of data predicting which groups they expect to switch with each new EOS R model they release.


As long as Canon sells APS-C ILCs, it would be interested in making lenses (especially telephoto lenses) compatible with both its APS-C and its FF cameras. Which at the moment means EF.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> As long as Canon sells APS-C ILCs, it would be interested in making lenses (especially telephoto lenses) compatible with both its APS-C and its FF cameras. Which at the moment means EF.



well, yes, they will keep making them as long as they sell in good numbers. They will just stop developing new lenses. Pretty much the same situation as with Sony and their E-mount vs A-mount. They're still making them, they just won't spend time developing and marketing them. And once RF mount is where EF is today, there will be little reason for any alternative mounts.



fullstop said:


> yes. As mandated by laws of optics.



As I recall it, Canon's design decision for EF-S was based on the idea that the lenses could be made smaller. Not sure if that really worked out. Meanwhile, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina produced EF-mount APS-C lenses that didn't have that protrusion and could be used on FF and APS-H models albeit with heavy vignetting.


----------



## mensaf (Sep 4, 2018)

Truthfully, I don't think it'd matter all that much. I have the 85mm f1.4 IS and it's comically large when mounted to the otherwise ultra compact M50. Compared to the EF-M lenses, it's clunky and throws the balance of the camera way off. I'd rather keep it as a b-cam or as an ultra light on the go camera than continue to mount oversized lenses to it. It isn't as bad when I have it caged, but I do a lot of freehand shooting with video and you definitely pick up on the lack of balance with that type of setup. I'd imagine issues with photography to be the same, if not moreso.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Take an EF lens. Take a ruler. Remove the back cap from the lens. Measure how deep the bayonet tabs protrude into the body from the flange.
> Yeah, because if Canon cannot warp space, third parties definitely can.



This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount. Even including manual aperture control (=for Nikon lenses without aperture ring). Notice how thick that flange is? 0.5mm could still be shaved off, i guess.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount.


Do you realize the difference between a lens protruding into a wider camera mount and a lens trying to protrude into a narrower camera mount?


----------



## stefang (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No. It is way too early. But unlike the drama queen article author I don't see why such a 2mm adapter should not be technically possible. Whether Canon or will (ever) bring one out or not remains to be seen. I definitely expect it from third parties - eventually.


Let's not forget that the RF mount is much wider than the EF-M mount and that part of the RF bayonet sits _*inside *_the RF mount. So if the RF bayonet does not fit inside the EF-M mount (which it probably doesn't) , it may very well be that even without an adapter, it's not possible to position an RF lens close enough to a EF-M mount.


----------



## photonius (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> We should also consider that Canon may believe the 'problems' are minor and/or irrelevant.
> 
> Anecdotally, the use of EF lenses on APS-C bodies prior to a FF upgrade certainly occurs. There are examples on this forum, myself included. But is that typical/common? I know I'm far from typical – I had the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the 85/1.2L II, the 100-400L, and the 24-105/4L IS with the 7D, prior to getting the 5DII.
> 
> I wonder how many Canon APS-C owners upgrade to FF, how many have EF lenses when they do, and how many of those were lower IQ lenses that were replaced L lenses after the upgrade. But...whereas I can only wonder, Canon has the data. In light of those data, there maybe no real problem from their perspective.



They key here is one still can have an APS-C system, and be fine with it, but supplement it with EF lenses that do not exist as EF-S. Unless a 2mm adapter comes, this will not be possible with RF lenses. The question then becomes, how much will Canon expand their EF-M lens repertoire (in a way they would have to duplicate their RF line-up). If it stay as is, it's not satisfactory for me, but I have no inclination to go FF because of higher costs, size and weight.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Do you realize the difference between a lens protruding into a wider camera mount and a lens trying to protrude into a narrower camera mount?



aha! yes! Now I got you. 
Overlooked the difference in diameter, just focused on FFD delta. 54mm throat-width lens onto a 47mm inner-width mount with only 2mm FFD delta is ... hmmmpf ... 

So, I stand corrected: RF to EF-M adapter "not likely". ;-)


----------



## zim (Sep 4, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Hmmm. Crop Mirrorless Canon = M mount. FF Mirroless Canon = RF mount. My guess is that Canon understands that (forum dwellers not withsatnding) very few folks will want RF lenses for their M series cameras and vice versa. Considering the huge size difference in both cameras and lenes, they regard these two mirrorless systems as completely separate. The so-called "upgrade path from crop to FF" might include so few people as to be a non factor. I am interested in the new RF camera and also own the M. I would have absolutely no interest in buying an RF lens for my M5 due to size and weight.



What path would you recommend a reach limited 7D user wanting @10fps to go down or someone who has EF APSC and FF and has one common set of EF L glass?

Not trolling honest, just that's where I am and I can get my head round all these mounts and adapters and how to go forward with this. As I said in a previous post I now have no interest in M5 either.

Maybe Canon did feel under pressure to release some news and we are all working off half a story here. The more I think about it the more it seems right that the rumoured other mirror-less could actually be a fast 24Mp sports replacement with RF mount sitting at a 7D level but then that's my personal needs and wishes clouding those thoughts!


----------



## pcaouolte (Sep 4, 2018)

Have we seen pictures of the back of the R lenses? Is it possible that the strange silver ring at the back of the lens is part of some clever mechanism to resize the R mount to fit an M camera without an adapter?


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 4, 2018)

pcaouolte said:


> Have we seen pictures of the back of the R lenses? Is it possible that the strange silver ring at the back of the lens is part of some clever mechanism to resize the R mount to fit an M camera without an adapter?


It could be possible, but the (leaked) specification of the EOS R take into consideration the EF-S and the EF lenses compatibility, and exclude the EF-M lenses.


----------



## brianboru (Sep 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon may have 'officially' discontinued the 1 series in July, but the last camera in the series came out in 2015.
> 
> As for the EOS M being 'arguably more successful', the Nikon one was a commercial flop, the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally. To claim the EOS M is 'arguably more successful' is disingenuous at best, but arguably just an asinine statement.



I find this amazing to contemplate in retrospect. I bought the original M when it went on the $300-with your choice of lens fire-sale back in July 2013. (The first M had one glaring problem - glacial focusing speed.) I remember reading lots of angst over Canons "failure" at the time and it did feel like Canon was abandoning the platform given how aggressive they were in clearing the shelves. About the same time, the Nikon -1 was also getting a lot of bad press too, but it was fairly easy to see that it had some fundamental platform problems of being sensor crippled for the size of package and price they wanted.

I'm glad Canon didn't abandon the M and am having fun with my new M50, I still have and use that original M too. 

So my bets for 5 years from now are: 

R/RF - will get most of the love. I expect APS-C bodies and entry kit showing up.
The M remains and is developed for the foreseeable future One new body and lens a year.
(It's competing against micro-4/3rds in a market trying to maximize image quality in the smallest package possible.)
EF remains with a sports and wildlife focus - refreshes of lenses and bodies slow. (I would still bet on a 7D3.)
EF-S and Rebel wither once the entry RF bodies and lens arrive. (This might be quicker than five years - I would love to know how many of the M sales were people picking between it and a Rebel as their first ILC.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

brianboru said:


> I find this amazing to contemplate in retrospect. I bought the original M when it went on the $300-with your choice of lens fire-sale back in July 2013. (The first M had one glaring problem - glacial focusing speed.) I remember reading lots of angst over Canons "failure" at the time and it did feel like Canon was abandoning the platform given how aggressive they were in clearing the shelves.


I don't find it amazing at all, nor even surprising if you consider the global view point instead of a North America-centric perspective. At the time of the original EOS M, MILCs were not popular outside of Asia, and Japan was the largest global market for them. In Japan, the original EOS M was not discounted, but instead rapidly rose to become the #2 best selling mirrorless, behind only a two generation-old, deeply discounted Sony NEX. 

In North America, they did abandon the platform for a while. The M2 was never sold here, and the M11-22 was not available in the US for a couple of years after its launch (I ordered mine from a Canadian online retailer).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 4, 2018)

Canon will watch sales of both cameras and lenses and at some future point will decide what needs to be cut. It may well be a transition that lasts a few years possibly to the RF (full frame) and M (APS-C) with EF legacy lenses working with RF and EF-S legacy lenses working with M and the disappearance of DSLRs in both EF & EF-S. However if DSLRs continue to have strong sales they may chose to support four lens series.


----------



## traveller (Sep 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> This is what Novoflex [a highly regarded german precision mechanics company, not some cheapo Chinese copyshop] can do with 2.5mm FFD difference. Nikon F to EF mount. Even including manual aperture control (=for Nikon lenses without aperture ring). Notice how thick that flange is? 0.5mm could still be shaved off, i guess.


I've read the posts on this thread, got out all my m42 equipment and adapters and had a long hard think... Despite my earlier statement of confidence that Canon had a solution to this issue (page 2 of this thread),* I've come to the realisation that those who claim an RF to M adapter is not physically possible are totally correct*. To get your head around why, don't look at the adapter, pick up the body with the smaller throat diameter (like my Pentax Spotmatic F) and an EF mount lens, then imagine how (theoretically assuming the EF lens actually had a 2mm longer flange focal distance than my Spotmatic) you would attach the EF mount lens to this body... You soon realise that the limiting dimension is the distance between the back of the EF mount lens' bayonet lug and the mount itself (i.e. the chrome bit). For an EF mount lens this is about 5mm, plus you'd need an extra 1-2mm of metal to form the 'face' of the adapter (even if you had some kind of external breech-lock type connector for the EF mount side). RF mount lenses may have a thinner mount than EF, but from the photos online I doubt it will be 2mm, as this would mean the bayonet would be incredibly thin and weak. It therefore seems that it is physically impossible to have a traditional external mount adapter that would allow you to connect RF mount lenses to EF-M mount bodies. 

Pentax had an m42 to K mount conversion service for years and Sigma currently offer this service (for $100 per lens, I believe) for their 'Art" series, but these are service centre jobs. We cannot completely rule out that Canon doesn't have some kind of cunning system that might allow you to change the actual mount at home, but I am struggling to match this possibility with the company that we all know (and often despise!) so well.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 4, 2018)

A bit of plastic piping and some duct tape and the RF lens will connect. You might lose some autofocus capabilities but it will be fine


----------



## bks54 (Sep 4, 2018)

I think adapting RF lenses to current EOS-M cameras is impossible. But what about a future EOS-M camera? Could Canon make a mount that adjusts to accept either EF-M or RF lenses?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Sep 4, 2018)

I wouldn’t be surprised if they looked at the numbers, and saw how many people that buy their Crop sensor and lower cameras never switch to Full Frame. Like my sister is still on a T3i, and is just now looking at a used M5 or new M50. She does want to expand with a lens or two though. They sell a lot of these lower cameras, from the point & shoots, to the G series, to the crop SLR, & now the M’s, and a lot of people just never graduate to full frame. They could definitely keep the M line around and make plenty of profit off of this massive customer base, and have the R line be for the pros / Semi- pros. Two lines would only bug a few of us in the grand scheme of things. 

But hey, at least I can ise EF lenses on both systems flawlessly with the Canon adapters. I love my little M5 for light travel. Probably going to keep it, my 5DsR, and pick up the EOS R for now. I’ll just have to think out my lens selection more carefully in the future in certain cases.


----------



## stevewhitemd (Sep 4, 2018)

A different thought: perhaps what Canon is signaling is that the APS-C format is being re-situated for consumers ONLY.

Consider why APS-C came about -- originally for film, it was a way to have a smaller negative with cheaper film and processing. When digital came along, sensors were really expensive. APS-C crop-frame sensors were cheaper than full-frame, and so it was possible to have a decent, enthusiast- or consumer-level camera with a smaller sensor, lighter optics, etc. Thus from Canon we ended up with the Rebel (xxxD) and enthusiast (xxD) APS-C cameras. Marketing wise this was genius -- the professionals had FF (xD), the enthusiasts and consumers had APS-C, and the EF mount served all. The EF-S was a concession particularly at the wide end where the APS-C cameras needed the help. But the pros weren't seriously interested in mounting an EF-S lens on their 1Dx or 5D so that was no big deal.

But now sensors are (somewhat) less expensive, and the delta between FF and APS-C less than before. So Canon now resolves the three markets -- consumer, enthusiast, and pro -- into two spaces:

1) FF -- R series cameras, RF lenses, EF lenses can be adapted. For pros and enthusiasts. We'll see a '1R', '5R', '6R' and '7R', all equivalents of the corresponding xD cameras. Maybe an '8R' which is today's 80D as FF and mirrorless.

2) APS-C -- less expensive M series cameras, EF-M lenses, EF lenses adapted if you need it but most won't bother. For consumers. Call it the 'Rebel-M' series. This is the M1, M10, M5, M50, etc all brought forward.

Enthusiasts (like me, an 80D owner)? We go FF and to the R series. That's where we want to be so as to use EF lenses and RF lenses in the future. We're not going to go to the M series just as we don't stay in the Rebel series for very long today. Design an '8R' that brings the 80D into mirrorless and FF, at a price point around a current 80D, and I'm there.

So over time Canon has two series, R and M, and two lens sets, RF and EF-M. RF lenses come out as quickly as Canon can do so; Canon eventually duplicates the EF capabilities in the RF catalog. EF-M lenses come out when Canon sees a market. EF lenses and D series cameras are made until the demand goes away.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 4, 2018)

I do not understand the strategy at all. They at the same time will announce highest end EF Superteles (after releasing very expensive TS Lenses recently), high end RF lenses and a higher end EF-M lens. So i do not see which mount will be obsolete next.

Generally, i would say the lower end EF-M and EF-S lenses and bodies can be obsoleted the easiest, without upsetting customers (as the Nikon 1). Most users have a single body with kit lens, which they will replace by a new kit at given time, by a Smartphone maybe.

EF-S is maybe even less relevant, this lenses can be used on M, and on RF it's less relevent, who buys a FF camera to use it in crop mode.

EF-R is the new line, and they come with some offers that look serious. It should stay in future

EF could be replaced by EF-R over time, depending on the success of the new mount. EF is usable on EF-R and a mount conversion service for the newer/more expensive lenses would be thinkable.

But anyways, as a heavily invested EF User, i feel somehow frustrated. My mount could get obsolete, my lenses loosing value much faster than planed, my bodies not beeing suitable for the newest lenses. This is emotional of course, but at the moment i am not in mood for money spending, so better use what i have, knowing that my skills will be the limiting factor for ever. But it kills the GAS, and in some years i might be no longer using my old gear, and buy a entry level compact camera, in G9 style maybe (or a better phone)

In opposit to the FD > EF Transition, this now not promises so much progress. mirrorless by itself may be a hype, but it does not make my pics better. Autofocus did and the digital development was fast these days. It's not comparable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2018)

bks54 said:


> I think adapting RF lenses to current EOS-M cameras is impossible. But what about a future EOS-M camera? Could Canon make a mount that adjusts to accept either EF-M or RF lenses?


I doubt that would be feasible. But they could make an APS-C MILC with the R mount, and an adapter for M lenses (albeit likely a rather kludgy adapter). But really, I don’t think either will actually happen. If Canon had felt mounting RF lenses on APS-C MILCs was important, they’d have built that capability in from the outset (e.g. designed the R mount with a longer FFD such than an R-to-M adapter would be possible).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2018)

stevewhitemd said:


> A different thought: perhaps what Canon is signaling is that the APS-C format is being re-situated for consumers ONLY...



Nikon tried that. Conceded the high-end crop sensor market to Canon's 7D line. It didn't work out so well for them. Hence the D500. Mirrorless technology just isn't capable of competing for the same customers as the 7D and D500 line is targeted at. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.


----------



## lightthief (Sep 4, 2018)

Like others, i feel somehow frustrated. Why?

It seems, the RF Mount proofs that Canon can and will devellop "better" lenses (2.0 zoom & 50 1.2) than for EF.
When i remeber right, some people here said a shorter mount is better for lenses with focal lenghts <50-100mm. Above that, there is no advantage.
EVF is in some regards better or worse than OVF. Am i wrong, when i say: wildlife-long-lense-users prefer OVF and wedding-portrait-landscape-fans prefer EVF?
When i'm right, i think we will get many new RF lenses below 100mm (where this shorter mount shines), and the longer lenses will come, when EVF is equal or better than OVF.
I fear, we will not see any new EF lenses with less than < 100mm in the future. Why should Canon devellop a EF 20 1.4, when it is more easy to get a better ER 20 1.4. Does anyone expect a EF 50 1.2, now?
The only thing, that speaks for EF lenses is this EF-RF-adapter with filter. The small adapter-filter can be very great and cheap for a TS-E 17 or the 11-24. But can we expect a EF 24/28 1.? any time?
I hope i'm wrong - but i think, with more RF lenses and no new EF, the OVF will die sooner than later. And in some situations, i prefer the OVF...


----------



## shoens (Sep 4, 2018)

My conclusion from all the helpful discussion is that I won't buy the M5 (or follow on) that I had considered. When I wanted small and light, I added a Rebel (T4i) to my collection and recently got the 77D. Although Canon hasn't filled out the EF-S lenses as much as I would like, I can pick and choose from the EF lens line to fill out the selections. It has worked out great.

For a simple example, for 135 format angle of view equivalents of 35ish and 85ish, I use the EF-S 24mm pancake and the EF 50mm f/1.8 for a small, light, and inexpensive kit. If I want to fill out the lenses, there are other EF 24mm lenses to choose from, maybe the new 85 f/1.4 for longer reach, and so on.

Contrast to the EOS M situation: there's the wonderful EF-M 22mm, the EF-M 28mm macro, the new EF-M 32mm, and then .... a bunch of kit zooms I don't want and the opportunity to use an EF-M adapter.

All of Canon's love has gone to EF lenses in the past. Now that love will be split with the RF lenses. I don't see Canon spending much energy on EF-S (but I don't need that) nor on EF-M, which I'd definitely would want if I purchased as EOS M camera.

Canon has 4 lens lines to maintain while Nikon has 3. Both Canon and Nikon mostly neglect the EF-S/DX lenses, so no big deal, but Canon's in a weird spot with EF-M. I know it wouldn't have been optimal, but I wish Canon had gone with EF-S for their crop frame mirrorless cameras. Yeah, yeah, the adapter, but I think the focus on 3 lens lines instead of 4 would have been better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 4, 2018)

I expect to see adapters for M to EOS R from Chinese companies, but they may not have electronic contacts. 

In the case of the M to EOS R, the 8mm difference in throat diameter should let them get away with a 2mm increase in registration distance, it works for Nikon to Canon, and Nikon F has a 46.5mm throat diameter (5.5mm less) and a 2mm longer registration distance.

For the EOS R to M, a TC like adapter with glass would be required because it would need to sit even further from the sensor. The likelihood that someone would turn out a high quality adapter a bit remote to me. 

All this assumes that there is a demand for them which justifies engineering the adapters. It does not take a huge demand for small Chinese companies to get into a niche market if its just a matter of machining a piece of rod stock, but optics takes much more of a investment..


----------



## K1001T (Sep 4, 2018)

Canon did the right thing by introducing the RF mount. Main reason why they did it was to maximize the optical strengths of having a larger diameter and closer distance. The EF mount was designed for a DSLR. Adapting the MiLC to use EF lenses compromises the ability to take advantage of a diameter and flange advantages. EFM lenses are optically superior and sharper than all EFS, EF, and some L series lenses. The reason is clear. EFM lenses are closer to the sensor and are optimized for MiLC cameras. My M5 with the 11-22mm is sharper than almost all of the EF lenses.

I am very confident the RF lenses are going to provide superior optical qualities over the current EF and L series lineup.

Sony messed up because they did not take advantage by creating a mount that is close and large like the new Nikon and Canon mounts. 

If Sony had created a mount large and close to the sensor they would be mopping the floor on Canon and Nikon lenses.
Sony G series lenses are not even close to the sharper of Canon lenses.
It's hilarious to see Sony users using Canon lenses too.

It was definitely a hard choice for Canon since they have so much invested in the EF lenses. RFs will coexist until DSLRs are obsolete. 

Simply put, RF are optimized for mirroless lenses just like EFM are optimized for APSC.
We will still have the ability to use EF lenses but we need accept that if we want the best quality we have to go with the native mounts.

MY BEEF WITH CANON

THEY NEED TO GET IN LINE AND OFFER INBODY IMAGE STABILIZATION LIKE THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS AND INVEST MORE ON EFM LENSES.

EX. EFM 50MM 1.4
EFM 50-135 F2


----------



## AJ (Sep 4, 2018)

So a 28-70/2 won't mount on an M-series camera. Who cares. It seems like small price to pay to have EF compatible with the R series.
In hindsight, Canon could have made the M-series with a mount similar to the R-series so that the M-series would accept EF, EF-S, EF-R and EF-M, all without adapters. I think this would have required a larger mount than the current one.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 4, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> I do not understand the strategy at all. They at the same time will announce highest end EF Superteles (after releasing very expensive TS Lenses recently), high end RF lenses and a higher end EF-M lens. So i do not see which mount will be obsolete next.
> 
> Generally, i would say the lower end EF-M and EF-S lenses and bodies can be obsoleted the easiest, without upsetting customers (as the Nikon 1). Most users have a single body with kit lens, which they will replace by a new kit at given time, by a Smartphone maybe.
> 
> ...



I see no reason to believe that mirrorless (and the new R system) will REPLACE DSLRs and EF lenses. Certainly not in the near future (meaning 10 years or more). As long as a fairly large percentage of people like OVFs better (and better battery life - meaning most birders, sports shooters and wildlife folks) the DSLR and the EF lines will continue. The fact that Canon continues to make new EF lenses is evidence that they have no plans to replace EF with RF. 

I also see no reason that M series cameras can't be larger and fill the niche that an 80D or 7D user will want in mirrorless. They will use M lenses or EF lenses with adapter. RF lenses will be for FF only. That keeps it simple. Two mirrorless systems with their own lenses. Two DSLR systems with the existing EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 4, 2018)

yup. Pretty much what me and others said repeatedly when we saw a 20mm registration distance. It is not a new argument but at least it is the first time I see somebody point it out outside of a forum. I guess the honey moon is over and people are starting to realize...oh crap it doesn't fit R lenses on my M and vice versa. Canon releasing a new M lens at least indicates they aren't done with M...yet...

But as pointed in the article, Sony's 7D/M5 killer will just mount everything in the E mount ecosystem, full frame or not day one. Presumably Nikon will not make another mount. This is key for they can just re-use Z's mount for cropped bodies and let them mount Z glass w/o needing adapters allowing them to focus on FF Z glass before playing around with cropped sensor smaller lenses. The cameras may be a bit bigger than Sony's as a result of the 55mm throat but IMO that's MUCH more preferable than outright locking you out from your next gen FFM lenses....and I really want to see a small crop sensor camera mount the 58mm f/0.95 NOCT...just because...it can


----------



## Richard Vernick (Sep 4, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> I have some thoughts on this because I also reached this conclusion after reading the "specs" we're all taking as fact.
> 
> 1.) There isn't a single lens on the EF-M mount I would want to adapt on a full-frame sensor and then crop in. It's no secret that the 22mm is a great little lens, but beyond that, only the 11-22mm is really anything special. I have the M50 for size and convenience. It's a _somewhat _pocketable 80D and it's what I use it as exclusively. I pack a full roller bag when I travel for work and can slip the M50 with the 22mm almost anywhere. The M lineup of lenses...or lack there of, have all shared a focus on size over performance. It's honestly what I like about it. Sure, faster lenses would be nice, but with more light comes more heft. It's fine if they wish to offer larger, faster lenses...but it doesn't appear that Canon is considering that with zooms any time soon.
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree. I have an M5 with full complement of EOS M lenses. Use for people and landscapes. Easy to carry and work with. I also have FF and APC bodies and lenses for Wildlife and birds. Two different beasts. The M5 and adapter is a backup body for the others.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 4, 2018)

AJ said:


> So a 28-70/2 won't mount on an M-series camera. Who cares. It seems like small price to pay to have EF compatible with the R series.
> In hindsight, Canon could have made the M-series with a mount similar to the R-series so that the M-series would accept EF, EF-S, EF-R and EF-M, all without adapters. I think this would have required a larger mount than the current one.



that would result on M cameras being also deeper because of the 44mm flange distance requirement to remove all adapters as you suggest. The reality is that you don't have to go to this extreme: all you needed to do, if you decide to introduce a new mount is consider supporting both sensors sizes properly, unlike canon/sony did . Sony just rammed the FF sensor in and they are pretty cramped there now, but they avoided a 2 mirrorless mount problem similar to canon's today. Canon obviously went the other direction and ended up with two incompatible mounts for each sensor. Nikon, having always supported cropped and full frame backwards and forwards regardless of body type with the F mount (they call it FX/DX), did the right thing form the start: big throat for very fast FF lenses, and pushed it all the way to 16mm so that most optical designs can either be adapted (included EF glass), or repurposed, such as any lens made by the sigmas of the world for existing mirrorless systems...even M4/3s (not that you'd want but you could...) These would not be adapted, just re-released as Z-compatible similarly to how they do today for EF and F mounts. It is the same design, just different housing. Off course Nikon being...Nikon hasn't released the new high speed BUS spec of the Z mount and I read this interview where the executive basically said: "they'll reverse engineer it anyway", they being, Sigma and the rest.

I assume Nikon, like Sony has, and if there is a market, release new APS-C mirrorless lenses. I doubt we'll see much action now with all the focus being FFM, but nothing stops them. Hell, golden opportunity here for the "other guys" to bring cropped sensor lenses to an APS-C...Z body, specially if they are just repurposed sony E 3rd party lenses.


----------



## Bambel (Sep 4, 2018)

psolberg said:


> yup. Pretty much what me and others said repeatedly when we saw a 20mm registration distance. It is not a new argument but at least it is the first time I see somebody point it out outside of a forum. I guess the honey moon is over and people are starting to realize...oh crap it doesn't fit R lenses on my M and vice versa. Canon releasing a new M lens at least indicates they aren't done with M...yet...



I think the 32/1.4 indicates that Canon now sees the M market mature enough to move it up a bit, but stay true to the smal-light-cheap mantra. It's a separate marked similar to what other crop systems offer. Use EF if you want to via a simple adapter and thats it. (But even a EF 50/1.8 looks redicoulus on a M.)

RF is for people who want a step up from crop but if you're at this point you want better glas anyway. I guess over the years more non-L will be seen, but it's clever to start this way, so you get yor R&D back faster. I wouldn't be surprised if RF lenses stay rather shortish for quite some time but there will be more affordable lenses.

EF-S lenses cover moste of the range that can be made really smaller, lighter and cheaper than similar FF lenses and the bodies are cheaper also. Not everybody can or wants to spend thousands of €/$/.. for kilos of gear when they can get not much less image quality for a fraction of size and price. And a lot of people will and want to stick to an OVF. I see no large gaps in Canons EF-S lineup, so development will be slow, but today everything is covered between 10-250mm on different pricepoints. A STM here and a Mk II update there and thats it.

That leaves EF and the beauty of it is that it fits flawless on ALL of the above mentioned cameras/mounts. So think about it's future..

B.

PS: EF is sort of the "short flange distance" hype in reverse: you can fit it on a LOT of things.


----------



## psolberg (Sep 4, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Do you realize the difference between a lens protruding into a wider camera mount and a lens trying to protrude into a narrower camera mount?


he's like the 4th person to get the problem wrong


----------



## psolberg (Sep 4, 2018)

Bambel said:


> I think the 32/1.4 indicates that Canon now sees the M market mature enough to move it up a bit, but stay true to the smal-light-cheap mantra. It's a separate marked similar to what other crop systems offer. Use EF if you want to via a simple adapter and thats it. (But even a EF 50/1.8 looks redicoulus on a M.)
> 
> RF is for people who want a step up from crop but if you're at this point you want better glas anyway. I guess over the years more non-L will be seen, but it's clever to start this way, so you get yor R&D back faster. I wouldn't be surprised if RF lenses stay rather shortish for quite some time but there will be more affordable lenses.
> 
> ...


CR admin pointed out that if strategy is a concern, you're not accounting for people who start with cropped sensor but invest in FF lenses to eventually migrate into. So if you buy an M and bought that 35 1.8 R macro, you could just use it as it had been the case with EF-S/EF or Nikon's DX/FX or sony's E/FE...

well not now, because that R glass isn't going to work on your M. That's just an observation. You can agree/disagree. You can attribute whatever strategy you want to the choices canon made.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 4, 2018)

I added an addendum to the article because things were getting a bit crazy, to be honest, i didn't expect my musings to attract such attention, not to mention spurious insults directed my way for having the nerve to mention that Canon created a bit of a problem that they need to explain. It's been a fun 24 or so hours 

_Addendum_

_It seems like this article has caused quite the furor across the internet._

_This wasn't an article saying that Canon made a huge mistake and that they are stupid. I'm sure there was a massive amount of discussions in Canon Inc over the potential solutions to this problem, and it wouldn't even surprise me if the final choice wasn't made until the very last minute. This article was written as my opinion, especially as someone that actively uses the EF-M system and loves its portability and versatility all packed into the small size of the EOS-M system. However, like many that have purchased an M5 (or an M6), the lure of a better more feature rich, better sealed camera body is something that at least I wish for. I would also still wish to use existing mirrorless lenses. In a perfect world I would also want to use mirrorless optimized RF lenses as well. This should come as no surprise to anyone. It's not a unique request, and it's one that Sony, for instance, handles gracefully._

_I personally feel that Canon over time needs to phase out the EF-M, EF-S, and EF lineup and concentrate on RF lenses for both full frame and crop APS-C. Canon's main competitor in this field, Sony, allows for seamless utilization across APS-C and full frame cameras for all their lenses from their lowly APS-C consumer lenses to their super GM series lenses. What I am identifying - is that this is now missing from Canon's lineup the way it stands today. It’s a bit of a mess, and it’s one of Canon’s own decision making, no one else._

_I hope this article continues to create some debate, and in the days ahead after Canon releases the EOS R and the related RF mount, that some questions are presented to Canon asking to clarify the direction of the EF-M, EF-S and EF systems._

_No, the sky is not falling but it's cloudy with a chance of rain._


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Huh. Sony E-mount is narrower than Canon EF-M mount (46.1mm vs. 46.5mm). If the Sony E-mount cameras can take full-frame FE lenses why can't EF-M bodies? Also, Sony users are complaining about vignetting and problems with wide-angle lenses with E-mount. Sony could have avoided that problem by using Konica-Minolta's wider A-mount (49.7mm diameter), which was designed for 35mm full-frame, unlike the E-mount which was designed for NEX-style compact ILCs. So I can also argue that Sony painted themselves into a corner by using a lens mount designed for small cameras and shoehorning full-frame lenses for it. Look at the front of any Sony E-mount MILC without a lens and you can readily see that the full-frame sensor corners don't even clear the lens mount.






Respinder said:


> Exactly this. I disagree that Canon should have used the "M" mount for this FF mirrorless, because they would have painted themselves in the same corner as Sony. Moving forward, both Canon and Nikon will be able to take advantage of the larger diameter RF and Z mounts respectively for their mirrorless systems, while Sony will remain constrained with the E-mount, due to its design being meant for crop sensor cameras; not full frame.
> 
> I do agree that there will be consumer confusion with Canon having four different lens systems, and they need to work quickly to correct this. As an example, Nikon terminated the "Nikon 1" just before the Z System went on sale. Canon's M system has been arguably more successful, but I still wonder whether the long-term plan is to eventually phase out the M system in favor of the RF system?






Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Your photo doesn't help because it is shot at an angle, and, in any case, my point was the EF-M mount can take an FF sensor if the smaller E-Mount can. Also, the vignetting & wide-angle corner problems caused by the E-Mount is well-known.
> 
> View attachment 180124



Actually, the diagonal of a FF 36x24mm sensor is 43.5mm, so a FF sensor will *just* fit inside a 46.1mm throat diameter if you are properly aligned with the camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 6, 2018)

canonnews said:


> it wouldn't even surprise me if the final choice wasn't made until the very last minute.



That would surprise me, significantly.

Hardware requirements are written early on. There were almost certainly trade studies, but the interface definition was probably approved and locked at least 2 years ago.

I guess by definition every decision is made at the last minute, but in this context, I can’t agree: that’s not how hardware development works.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Respectfully, perhaps you should consider the difference in aspect ratio in calculation, too. If I'm right, Canon APS-C sensor is 22.2(w)x14.8(h) mm and Super 35 is 24.6(w)x13.8(h) mm, that is, Super 35 sensor is a bit larger in width. Therefore APS-C image circle may not fully cover the Super 35 sensor, unless M lenses are built with larger image circle, which is quite likely. However, lens makers don't publish the image circle info so we won't be sure about that. Since Super 35mm is slightly larger than APS-C, in principle, using an APS-C lens while shooting in Super 35mm mode does not seem to be practical, without further tweaks.






Josh Leavitt said:


> I would imagine the wider focal lengths of current EF-M lenses would struggle. The EF-M 11-22mm for example, suffers up to -3 stops of light in the corners wide open at 11mm. Normal and short/mid telephoto lenses don't seem prone to the same amount of vignetting, so it's possible that most of the EF-M glass would perform well enough. Although Canon would almost certainly create a higher quality line of lenses for an EF-M super35 video platform if they pursued that route, since a dedicated video camera would likely be much higher-end in terms of electronic components than standard EOS M stills cameras (hence demanding more proprietary lenses for video work). Probably similar to what they did with the tilt-shift lenses for the EF line; only EF-M video lenses wouldn't just have a larger image circle, they would also likely include a t-stop ring as well as a separate textured focus ring.



Not to scale. If the diagonal measurements are the same, the image circle size needed is the same. Any more questions?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> We should also consider that Canon may believe the 'problems' are minor and/or irrelevant.
> 
> Anecdotally, the use of EF lenses on APS-C bodies prior to a FF upgrade certainly occurs. There are examples on this forum, myself included. But is that typical/common? I know I'm far from typical – I had the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the 85/1.2L II, the 100-400L, and the 24-105/4L IS with the 7D, prior to getting the 5DII.
> 
> I wonder how many Canon APS-C owners upgrade to FF, how many have EF lenses when they do, and how many of those were lower IQ lenses that were replaced L lenses after the upgrade. But...whereas I can only wonder, Canon has the data. In light of those data, there maybe no real problem from their perspective.



I was using an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II on a 50D before got my first FF (5D Mark II) about a year after I bought the 70-200/2.8. I bought the kit that included the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS with the 5DII because the 70-200/2.8 L IS II had sold me on 'L' glass.

The only other FF EF lenses I owned at the time were an EF 50mm f/1.8 II and an ancient EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 that came with my Rebel II (film camera). I was using a Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II and an EF-S 55-250 plus the 50/1.8 on the 50D (both already owned when the 50D was purchased to replace a Rebel XTi) until I bought the 70-200/2.8 II. The EF mount Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6, bought in the early '90s) that I used with the film camera did not work with EOS digital bodies.

Oh, and an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 that I've never really used. It came with the 50D (I needed the camera on very short notice and the only one I could find locally at the time was the kit). I tried to like the 28-135, but it was too slow and too narrow for APS-C. By the time I bought my first FF, I was already addicted to constant aperture zooms.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

bod said:


> Pleased to be reading this thread as I have been contemplating the same topics over the weekend since the details leaked about the new EOS R mount. In particular I want to move to EVF - mirrorless bodies but I am trying to work out a plan to replace my current FF (6D) plus APSC (7DII) bodies. As suggested as a possibility in the Canon news article my first thought was that the future will involve a high resolution mirrorless body which I can use in either a FF or cropped mode. I think it is likely that a high resolution RF body will be Canon's next release.
> 
> I also agree that I see the attraction of the M lineup as keeping it small and light. I had wondered which way Canon would go with the FF mirrorless but now knowing the RF lens lineup "smaller and lighter" is definitely not the case, Canon instead offering faster lenses.
> 
> ...



From a business standpoint, the problem with that scenario is that there's nothing to keep the EF-M user from going to Nikon, Sony, Pentax, or (soon) Panasonic rather than sticking with Canon for the FF body. Even one or two (often soon outgrown) lenses is often enough to keep someone upgrading from APS-C to FF in the same ecosystem.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon decided that two optimally chosen lens mounts as rock-solid foundation for each of their mirrorfree systems - APS-C and FF - are top priority.

EOS M / EF-M has been designed as a *limited system* offering decent IQ in a very compact package at very affordable prices. we could not use EF-M lenses on other Canon cameras and it was no problem. And we can still use all EF and EF-S lenses on EOS M system, but we can not use RF lenses on it. So what!

we also cannot use wheels and tires of any car maker's big pickup truck on the same car maker's smallest compact car. Nor vice versa. No problem, we accept technical facts and will not rant at the car maker about "wheel and tire incompatibility between different car categories". and folks happy with a compact car from that makers range are still very likely to consider that make first, when looking for a pick-up truck. although wheels and tires do not offer an "upgrade path".


----------



## moreorless (Sep 6, 2018)

PerKr said:


> In a few years EF-M and EF-S will be on lifesupport. As big as canon are, they still need to focus on that one mount. EF will have a drawn out death depending on how quickly people migrate to RF, I'd say it will take about a decade and then canon will tell us that there will be no more development of EF mount products. Any lenses released in that timeframe will be designed with the RF adapter in mind though.
> Unless sensor manufacturing costs go down, I would expect the future to hold a couple of APS-C bodies. Also, it seems to me that the 7D line has been popular enough that a mirrorless equivalent could be justified.



One thing to consider though is that EF-M and EF-S don't really take much development do they? I mean we've seen a few EF-M lenses released recently as the system is young but the kind of user its targeting doesn't tend to demand specialist lenses. Canon could very well carry on with the current lens lineup for an extended period.

Maybe you could argue that the lack of an upgrade path isn't such an issue as it is on DSLRs? people buying EF lenses to use on EF-S cameras are I'd guess mlore likely to be xD or 7D shooters and arguably no equivalent exists on EF-M.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

stefang said:


> Let's face it: APS-C was invented in a time that full frame sensors were very expensive. Now that that problem has been solved, who needs APS-C?



Hobbyists and enthusiasts that want a 300mm f/2.8 angle of view and lens speed for a 200mm f/2.8 price on a camera that can shoot 10+ fps and do Servo AF between each frame.



[email protected] said:


> Pure speculation: perhaps the new 7D could be the pro mirrorless 5 series we all assume is coming, but with a crop mode that boosts frame rate to 12.



Maybe there will be a 50 MP FF RF mount camera that will have an option to shoot in crop mode with a faster frame rate than when using the full 50 MP sensor, but Canon (and most everyone else) appears to still be a long way from doing sensor based Servo tracking at those kinds of frame rates. With some lenses the Sony α9 slows from 20 fps to 5 fps when AF tracking between each frame is switched on.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> "FF EF-M" wasn't possible due to the diameter not accommodating a FF sensor from my understanding. Mounting FF lenses on crop (EF-M) wouldn't vignette.



Sure they would if the lens' rear element is larger than the smaller (by 10mm) throat diameter of the EF-M camera. The flange on the camera would be directly behind the outer edge of the lens' rear element.



olympus593 said:


> Cut the crap.
> 
> Pentax PK mount flange mount distance is 45.46mm, 1.46mm larger than EF (44mm) and there are many adapters out there, some with onboard electronics for compatibility with newer lenses. I use a "dumb" one with a PK 50mm f/1.2.



It's the 10mm larger throat diameter that is the main issue, not the 2mm difference in registration. The camera's flange ring would be 5mm inside the adapter's flange ring on the other side.




fullstop said:


> so funny. all the drama, whrn everything is totally logical and clear.
> 
> Canon goes from 2 mounts in the mirrorslapper past to 2 mounts in the mirrorfree future. they do not compromise on lens mounts. Not in 1987, not today. one thing i really like about them.
> 
> ...



The EF mount throat diameter is 54mm, not 44mm.




stefang said:


> Let's not forget that the RF mount is much wider than the EF-M mount and that part of the RF bayonet sits _*inside *_the RF mount. So if the RF bayonet does not fit inside the EF-M mount (which it probably doesn't) , it may very well be that even without an adapter, it's not possible to position an RF lens close enough to a EF-M mount.



BINGO! We have a winner!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 6, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I think forum posters are the largest percentage, by a mile. Pros will use what does the job best, sometimes that's an adaptor.



Pros are mostly anti cross-platform adapters, where things such as AF and are reverse engineered. They don't have the same issue with extenders or macro extension rings where the protocols on both flanges are the same.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Can anybody comment on why the mount on the back of the RF lenses (where the black outer parts meets silver) look the way the do? They don't need to look like that if the contact to the RF mount is placed a bit further back. Here is what I mean:







Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I think that it is because they are still developing higher end cameras, with a hybrid switchable mount that can accept both RF and EF lenses natively.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 7, 2018)

Here in sample-size-of-one land, my response to the imminent obsoleting of my beloved 80D was to .. double down on EF-S and pick up an inexpensive used Sigma 50-100 1.8 for indoor sports and portraits. It's a lot cheaper than trying to match with FF. Also sold the 6d in hopes of 6D II prices falling over the next few months. I love the low light IQ of the 6d and the DOF / perspective with cheap primes that I already had in EF, but the focusing was clearly pokey compared to the 80D. My main passion is insect macro, which like birds usually benefits from high density crop. I am fine with having EF-M stick to compact, right now the M6 has good focus and great image quality in decent light, but focus becomes unusable in low light that barely taxes the 80D or even the 6D. I could see buying a crop body in RF mount, which seems like the best way to upgrade the 7DIII or IV, if and only if it had my own weird idiosyncratic features tailored to macro shooting; focus bracketing, in-camera focus stacking, an AF MPE-65 update to take advantage of those features, and an intervalometer that goes down to 4 or 5 per second instead of 1 per second, to take better time lapse of eggs and chrysalises hatching. Really I don't feel obsoleted because the 80D could be my last camera and I'd never run out of challenges.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 9, 2018)

illadvisedhammer said:


> Here in sample-size-of-one land, my response to the imminent obsoleting of my beloved 80D was to .. double down on EF-S and pick up an inexpensive used Sigma 50-100 1.8 for indoor sports and portraits. It's a lot cheaper than trying to match with FF. Also sold the 6d in hopes of 6D II prices falling over the next few months. I love the low light IQ of the 6d and the DOF / perspective with cheap primes that I already had in EF, but the focusing was clearly pokey compared to the 80D. My main passion is insect macro, which like birds usually benefits from high density crop. I am fine with having EF-M stick to compact, right now the M6 has good focus and great image quality in decent light, but focus becomes unusable in low light that barely taxes the 80D or even the 6D. I could see buying a crop body in RF mount, which seems like the best way to upgrade the 7DIII or IV, if and only if it had my own weird idiosyncratic features tailored to macro shooting; focus bracketing, in-camera focus stacking, an AF MPE-65 update to take advantage of those features, and an intervalometer that goes down to 4 or 5 per second instead of 1 per second, to take better time lapse of eggs and chrysalises hatching. Really I don't feel obsoleted because the 80D could be my last camera and I'd never run out of challenges.



How could there be an AF MP-E 65mm? There's only a single focus distance available for each magnification. For any specific magnification, the MFD (minimum focus distance) is also the _maximum_ focus distance.

To change the focus distance one must also change the magnification. To change the magnification one must also change the focus distance. There are no independent movements for focus distance and for magnification. With the MP-E 65mm they are one and the same thing.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 9, 2018)

This is all very confusing to someone like me who was quite happy with my 5D series bodies and EF lenses for pro use, augmented by small EF-S bodies as travel and walking around cameras.

I see very few practical advantages in the mirrorless systems, beyond the new & cool factor, so I won't be switching for a very long time.

I'm also concerned now that Canon will be diverting resources away from the EF and EF-s platforms that have worked well for me.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> How could there be an AF MP-E 65mm? There's only a single focus distance available for each magnification. For any specific magnification, the MFD (minimum focus distance) is also the _maximum_ focus distance.
> 
> To change the focus distance one must also change the magnification. To change the magnification one must also change the focus distance. There are no independent movements for focus distance and for magnification. With the MP-E 65mm they are one and the same thing.



Forget AF, how about a MP-*T*E 65mm with tilt? I briefly owned a TS-E 90mm for macro work and loved the shift, but the 0.3x max magnification made it impractical for me to use.


----------



## illadvisedhammer (Sep 11, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> How could there be an AF MP-E 65mm? There's only a single focus distance available for each magnification. For any specific magnification, the MFD (minimum focus distance) is also the _maximum_ focus distance.
> 
> To change the focus distance one must also change the magnification. To change the magnification one must also change the focus distance. There are no independent movements for focus distance and for magnification. With the MP-E 65mm they are one and the same thing.



You're right, although once I've picked a distance / composition either moving the camera or changing the magnification on the lens slightly is for focus rather than magnification. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the MPE, but an autofocus macro that goes down to 3X or 4X would allow for focus bracketing or stacking in camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 11, 2018)

illadvisedhammer said:


> You're right, although once I've picked a distance / composition either moving the camera or changing the magnification on the lens slightly is for focus rather than magnification. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the MPE, but an autofocus macro that goes down to 3X or 4X would allow for focus bracketing or stacking in camera.



With anything greater than 1:1, the MFD and maximum focus distance begin to converge fairly quickly. Very few macro photographers shooting at greater than 1:1 use AF at all. That's what a focusing rail is for. So there's no real demand for an AF lens in that segment.

It's just like the vast majority of Cinema camera operators use manual focus, so very expensive Cinema lenses don't even offer AF.


----------



## Mattionals (Sep 12, 2018)

Newbie here, but wouldn't an adapter with optics inside of it be able to change the focal distance of the lens, therefore a thicker adapter could be made to adapt an RF lens to the EF-M mount? Essentially it would change the flange distance of the RF lens to one that could be longer, but still concentrate light on the APS-C sensor of the EF-M sensor? It's been quite some time since I've done optics, but I think that is possible, right? If so, it would cost a few hundred dollars, which would be offputting for the casual photographer that the M series is aimed at, but for the Pros and Prosumer Amateurs out there, it would a great way to have a second body.


----------

