# Patent: Canon EF-M 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 22, 2018)

> Japan Patent Application 2018185386 showcases an optical formula for an EF-M 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens. The short backfocus distance tells us it’s for a mirrorless application, and we’re pretty sure there will NOT be dedicated APS-C lenses for the EOS R system.
> Is a fisheye needed for the EOS M lineup? Probably not, but if priced right, it could be a solid niche lens for the system.



Continue reading...


----------



## jschoonj (Nov 22, 2018)

Not the lens I want, but if this means proof of life for the M-system I'll take it!


----------



## nickorando (Nov 22, 2018)

I love fisheyes. Currently, I use the 8-15 L, which is just too big and bulky on the M for travel use, so I was considering a third party one - would much prefer an EF-M version. It's an important lens for me,


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 22, 2018)

For me this would make a nice and lightweight 360 degree panorama solution on my EOS M5. I already own a M-Mount converted m43 Samyang fisheye, but the quality is not as good (especially with flare resistance) as I'm used to from my 6DII with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye.

Frank


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 22, 2018)

Hasn't the death of the EOS M system been predicted right here on this forum?
The latest lens announcement - developments seem to contradict these fears! Looks like the EOS M could be meant as a replacement for the APS DSLR series.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 22, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Hasn't the death of the EOS M system been predicted right here on this forum?



only by a few who either have little clue and/or are some sort of FUD-trolls. 

It was and is not hard to see that Canon goes with M/EF-M for APS-C and with EOS R/RF for FF image circle (exclusively).

Fisheye. Fine, but not for me. I want a moderately fast, short EF-M tele prime - something between 75-85mm and f/2.0 to f/2.4 with IQ as good as EF-M 22/2.0 and similar price tag


----------



## Woody (Nov 23, 2018)

I will be interested in this lens if it's lightweight (below 200g) and low-priced.


----------



## dcm (Nov 23, 2018)

Have used the Canon 8-15L on FF and APS-C bodies (Rebel and M series). A bit bulky for the M when hiking and backpacking so I picked up the Samyang 8mm f2.8 Fisheye II about 4 years ago. It provides a diagonal fisheye at 8mm and has been fine for my purposes. Manual focus is easy on the M3 and M5 with focus peaking, especially since the DOF is so large on an 8mm lens. The Samyang weighs 260g to the 540g for the 8-15L (plus the extender when used with the M series). Under 200g seems unlikely.

The Canon has a .16m MFD versus .3m on the Samyang. The closer MFD has provided some interesting shots since it allows the lens to nearly touch the subject. Not nearly as dramatic with the Samyang.

To do a quick comparison I took a few sample shots in my office to compare the Samyang 8mm with the Canon at both 8mm and 10mm on my M3. At 8mm the Canon shows the edge of the image circle in the frame while the Samyang 8mm does not. At 10mm the Canon provides the diagonal fisheye view, but is slightly narrower angle of view then the Samyang's 167 degree AOV. The Samyang provides 180 degrees on other APS formats.

The Samyang appears to be equal or better in image quality to the 8-15L at f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 in these sample images, and if offers f2.8. These images were taken in less than ideal lighting conditions under heavy overcast. Only noise reduction and scaling were applied. It might be worth trying again under better conditions using the M5 for comparison. For now the Samyang seems up to the task - glad I didn't wait for Canon to release one.

Will be interesting to see if anything comes of this patent. Another EF-M Fisheye patent was posted earlier this year: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/updated-patent-ef-15mm-f-4-ef-m-9-5mm-f-4.34241


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 23, 2018)

I bought a cheap Chinese fish-eye zoom, and although it's MF, it works really well.
AF isn't very important in a fish-eye lens anyway.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 23, 2018)

A strange lens for EF-M but if it is moderately low price (the low number of lenses and the 3.5 mm max aperture diameter give a hint to low production cost) and has excellent flare resistance (low lens / element count supports this) it will be interesting for some applications of more scientific use. And if it's contrasty and sharp defishing is an option for some applications.

Please let a f/4.0 10mm IS rectilinear lens follow!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 23, 2018)

Though no EOS M user I love to see that Canon still puts efforts into this system and if this patent becomes true it‘ll be a cool lens


----------



## 4fun (Nov 23, 2018)

sorry, but it is not a case of "still puts effort in". Canon will soon offer APC-S sensored MILCs only as EOS M with EF-M lenses. What is difficult to understand here? No more Rebel mirrorslappers, no 90D, no 7D III. Or myabe yes, but then they'll be the last marginal iteration of Canon crop mirrorslappers. After that it will be EOS M/EF-M for APS-C image circle and R/RF for "full-frame" (36x24mm).


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 23, 2018)

Photorex said:


> For me this would make a nice and lightweight 360 degree panorama solution on my EOS M5. I already own a M-Mount converted m43 Samyang fisheye, but the quality is not as good (especially with flare resistance) as I'm used to from my 6DII with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye.
> 
> Frank


This is how small and lightweight a 360 Pano Setup can be. The slanted adaptor is exactly manufactured for the M5 with my Samyang Fisheye lens to be rotated around the NPP. Most probably I would need a second such an adaptor (or at least a second hole for the camera mount screw) with this Canon lens (if it is really in the works).


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> sorry, but it is not a case of "still puts effort in". Canon will soon offer *APC-S APS-C *_(corrected that for you)_* sensored MILCs only as EOS M* with EF-M lenses.
> ...


With the rumor of an APS-C equipped EOS R body I wouldn't put "all in" on this "_only_" opinion.
To me it's the opposite. To me EOS M is the pure consumer line, the "keep it small line".
Reasons:

We haven't seen any patents for wide aperture EF-M lenses yet, especially no zooms - AFAIK.
The EF to EF-M adapter is soso, esp. looking at the AF performance.
There cannot (!) be an RF to EF-M adapter because of the flange distance.
Not every prosumer/enthusiast wants or needs FF.
We have just one f/2.0 and one f/1.4 EF-M yet. Everything else starts at least from f/3.5.

Not "sorry", but to me it makes totally sense that there will be an APS-C EOS R line for prosumer/enthusiast/birders/etc.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 24, 2018)

aha! 360 panos / VR ... that explains why Canon might well add a compact fisheye lens to the EF-M lineup!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 24, 2018)

i don't see any need or chance for APS-C sensors in Canon EOS R line. The sole reason, why crop sensored imaging products exist are size and price. Both objectives are perfectly met with EOS M/EF-M.

R-mount is perfect for FF and will be used exclusively for FF, simply because R-mount bodies with crop sensor and lenses for it could never be made as compact as EF-M gear. Canon people in charge have confirmed this in a recent interview. APS-C in EOS R line does not make sense: neither techically, nor commercially.

compact and affordable = EOS M, EF-M plus option to use all EF and EF-S glass. original Canon EF/EF-M adapter works perfectly well, no issues whatsoever (i have it, i use it). limited AF performance is an issue only with some older EF lenses that were not designed for use in live view/mirrorless mode.

With launch of M5/M6 and especially M50 and subsequent EF-M lenses (28 macro, 18-150, 32/1.4) and undoubtedly more to come (like a fisheye or next M bodies) Canon have finally accelerated transition from crop-sensor mirrorslappers (xxxxD, xxxD, xxD, 7D - in that sequence) and EF-S mount to mirrorfree M/EF-M.

there is no reasonable doubt that EOS M line will be Canon's crop-sensor platform and in terms of unit sales their most important product line for many years to come.

btw: "no upgrade path" In form of "buying and using FF lenses on crop sensor cameras" is not important any longer in reality.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 24, 2018)

4fun said:


> i don't see any need or chance for APS-C sensors in Canon EOS R line.


This is your individual opinion. Future will tell us if Canon sees it the same or different.



> The sole reason, why crop sensored imaging products exist are size and price. Both objectives are perfectly met with EOS M/EF-M.


And what about speed? Speed in AF (EF-M motors) and speed in aperture.
I don't see high potentials here in the M system. 
What do you think will be Canons future product for birders, wildlifers and sports prosumers and all others that do not have the money to go fully FF with big whites but also want the speed and reach you can get today with a 7D2 and EF 100-400II or EF400/5.6?



> R-mount is perfect for FF and will be used exclusively for FF, simply because R-mount bodies with crop sensor and lenses for it could never be made as compact as EF-M gear.


Again, there is no use in compact bodies when you are looking for FL 400mm+ or f/1.4 with >50mm and good IQ.



> Canon people in charge have confirmed this in a recent interview. APS-C in EOS R line does not make sense: neither techically, nor commercially.


Then why is there the rumor mentioned above? And why are there already 9 pages and >160 posts about it? Lack of interest? No market? Strange!



> btw: "no upgrade path" In form of "buying and using FF lenses on crop sensor cameras" is not important any longer in reality.


Why?


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> only by a few who either have little clue and/or are some sort of FUD-trolls.
> 
> It was and is not hard to see that Canon goes with M/EF-M for APS-C and with EOS R/RF for FF image circle (exclusively).
> 
> Fisheye. Fine, but not for me. I want a moderately fast, short EF-M tele prime - something between 75-85mm and f/2.0 to f/2.4 with IQ as good as EF-M 22/2.0 and similar price tag


There are many FUD-trolls here that really wish (not only think which is their opinion but wish!)for the EF/EF-S line to go extinct.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 25, 2018)

tron said:


> There are many FUD-trolls here that really wish (not only think which is their opinion but wish!)for the EF/EF-S line to go extinct.


i think this is a misinterpretation. my postings that EF-S and EF are on their way out are a bit gleeful, because my earlier postings when i was wishing for mirrorfree alternatives received so much criticism, sarcasm and attempts to ridicule them. 

now it turns out i was right all along and it's me waving goodbye to slapping mirrors and associated shenanigans. glad we finally are offered current day technology with enhanced functionality and capability also from ever-conservative Canon (and Nikon). glad to see they were finally pushed to "slaughter some of their formerly sacred cows" (change lens mount, omg!). 

Waiting to see them further forced right into my ally: very compact gear with up-to-date IQ and functionality at much more affordable prices then hence. 

For APS-C image circle Canon has managed this pretty well with M50 and EF-M lenses. Now i want to see a similar lineup for FF (in addition to all the super premium hi-end gear). i am confident i will eventually get my ultracompact, FF-sensored EOS "Rebel"/"R50" ... at € 999 and some matching nice and well-priced non-L RF lenses to go with it.


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> i think this is a misinterpretation. my postings that EF-S and EF are on their way out are a bit gleeful, because my earlier postings when i was wishing for mirrorfree alternatives received so much criticism, sarcasm and attempts to ridicule them.
> 
> now it turns out i was right all along and it's me waving goodbye to slapping mirrors and associated shenanigans. glad we finally are offered current day technology with enhanced functionality and capability also from ever-conservative Canon (and Nikon). glad to see they were finally pushed to "slaughter some of their formerly sacred cows" (change lens mount, omg!).
> 
> ...


May be my posting was a little misinterpreted too because I did not meant you wished but you reminded me of someone's post who literally wished it. Which seems sick to me. That's why I mentioned in parenthesis that opinion is different from wish.

Since for me the EOS R is a step backwards I do not share your opinion but everyone is entitled to their opinion of course.
My reasons are that it seems obvious to me that EOS R is behind 5DIV and 5DsR and ahead of 6DII. This is now of course and Canon could improve in the future although the speed of EVFs cannot reach the speed of ... light of OVFs.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> btw: "no upgrade path" In form of "buying and using FF lenses on crop sensor cameras" is not important any longer in reality.


Hi 4 fun!

My question from above still stays unanswered yet. Although you've found the time to post here.

So I would still be interested why you think that an upgrade path is "_not important any longer_". Why?

And the same for this question:


Maximilian said:


> What do you think will be Canons future product for birders, wildlifers and sports prosumers and all others that do not have the money to go fully FF with big whites but also want the speed and reach you can get today with a 7D2 and EF 100-400II or EF400/5.6?


----------



## 4fun (Nov 25, 2018)

i am neither Siri nor Alexa, so I don't have to answer every question, right? Go, ask Canon! 

However, i exapect a "flagship" EOS M model (M5 successor) with a somewhat larger body/grip, top notch AF and fps, higher capacity battery and decent wheathersealing. a "mirrorfree 7D III". still smaller and less expensive than a FF EOS R. and if a few birders want to use it with tele lenses, no problem. EF 100-400 II will work just fine. no slapping mirror needed.

and birders with more budget will buy a FF EOS R model and use a 600/4 or whatever big white EF on it, until upcoming lighter, more compact RF DO tele lenses are launched.

people able to afford long white tele FF-glass should also be able to buy a FF camera, right?

Those who want it smaller and less expensive and (still) believe a crop sensor would give them a "reach advantage" (compared to cropping a high MP FF image), will go for EOS M and be happy with it.

also: a few EF-M lenses are no big investment. if you want to go FF later on, you just sell them or put them in a drawer and forget them.

so what "upgrade path" from EF-M lenses to RF would anyone need?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> i am neither Siri nor Alexa, so I don't have to answer every question, right? Go, ask Canon!


No! I am asking you!
Because it wansn't the statement of Canon but *YOURS*!

An EF 100-400 II will only do fine as long as Canon is not letting EF die. But exactly that was your prediction.
So, please, tell me what Canon will do in your future as you can foresee everything so well. 
And even if it is just your wish or dream, please tell me if you have dreamt of this either. 
If not, you're dreaming a dream of fools, because you - once again - don't think of business. 
And leaving such an interesting and well selling piece of market alone would be really foolish. 

I was trying to give you a good chance to well spread your ideas of what Canon will or should do. 
I wasn't offensive nor cynical nor fanboyish. I was just interested in your ideas.
But if you answer like you do now then I am sorry for you because it shows that you are not interested in real discussions but just to spread your limited and narrow point of view not caring about the whole picture but just about what you're interested in and everything else is not present for you. 

Now I am sorry - indeed. For you!


----------



## 4fun (Nov 25, 2018)

it is not only "my humble opinion". Canon managers have said so very clearly in a recent interview re. EOS R and APS-C: it ain't going to happen, because it is not possible to make it small enough (due to size of R mount) and even more importantly: it does not make any sense.

No need to feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for Canon, if anything. 

PS: any EF lens will keep working indefinitely ... also on EF-M and R-mount .. with any one of the 4 adapters.


----------



## flip314 (Nov 25, 2018)

4fun said:


> it is not only "my humble opinion". Canon managers have said so very clearly in a recent interview re. EOS R and APS-C: it ain't going to happen, because it is not possible to make it small enough (due to size of R mount) and even more importantly: it does not make any sense.
> 
> No need to feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for Canon, if anything.
> 
> PS: any EF lens will keep working indefinitely ... also on EF-M and R-mount .. with any one of the 4 adapters.



I suggest you go back and read that interview (and not some of the misleading news articles that read too much into it). What they clearly said was that EOS R was not going to replace EOS M. They haven't made any definitive statements on APS-C R bodies.

I can't imagine why they would make a 7D series camera out of EOS M. Firstly, the clear benefit of EOS M is its size, which is NOT something everyone wants from mirrorless, and definitely NOT what the 7D is targeted to. Secondly, I don't think they want to lose the 7D market by forcing all the people who would otherwise buy it to chose EOS M (and lose compatibility with the fancy new RF lenses that Canon wants to sell) or force them up to the 1DX series (probably out of their price range).

I guarantee that canon wants to sell RF lenses more than they want to sell EOS M lenses. The way you do that is to convince as many people as possible to buy EOS R bodies. Canon may phase out EF-S lenses so they can push the 80D crowd to EOS M (I'm not even convinced of this), but they would just be leaving money on the table by pushing 7D users to EOS M.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 25, 2018)

flip314 said:


> I can't imagine why they would make a 7D series camera out of EOS M.



Well, and I can't imagine why Canon would want to stick a puny little APS-C crop sensor into their R range with perfectly designed for FF image circle R mount. It would be totally wasteful ... casting pearls before the swine, really. Does not make any sense at all.
Especially when EF-M mount parameters are perfectly well chosen for mirrorfree APS-C.
Canon had 2 mounts in the past DSLR-era: EF (exclusively FF) and EF-S (exclusively APS-C). 

And they are going with 2 mounts for mirrorfree: 
* EOS M ... exclusively APS-C.
* EOS R ... exclusively FF.

Plain to see and obvious. Choose one or the other. Or both. Anything else is delusional/wishful thinking by some 7D owners.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2018)

4fun said:


> Plain to see and obvious. Choose one or the other. Or both. Anything else is delusional/wishful thinking by some 7D owners.


Or purely twisting arguments as long as they fit to your perspective only. 

flip314 said it also that the interview was interpreted - maybe in a wrong way. But other articles - esp. here at canonrumors.com - have stated that it could be interpreted in different ways as well.
So feel free to see the plain and obvious in your individual narrowed perspective.
Feel free to state something but not answering questions that show that your line of argument is not the only possibility in the world.

I am out of this discussion, because if you are ignoring the different facts/interpretations of your own arguments then there is no reason to argue with you any more.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 26, 2018)

any "different" interpretation of the "no APS-C in EOS R" interview statement is nothing but wishful thinking largely the very same same people who seriously thought Canon would bring mirrorfree Ff cameras with EF mount. Totally delusional.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2018)

Okay, as you still seem to prefer twisting facts I am not out of this yet.


4fun said:


> ...any "different" interpretation of the "no APS-C in EOS R" interview statement...


Please show me the site where this has been differently translated.
I posted a APS-C rumor where canonrumors.com quoted this interview as


> Asked about EOS M and EOS R and how they fit in the Canon lineup (Google translated):
> _That’s right. Since EOS R is a full-size system, it can not be downsized to EOS M size. EOS M has a role/existence value as an APS-C system._



They also directly showed, that your interpretation of that quote is wrong


> While I think he’s saying that EOS M will always be an APS-C system, the EOS R form factor will not be shrunk. That doesn’t mean we won’t see an APS-C EOS R body. If we’re going to get a mirrorless replacement for the EOS 7D series, it will have to be in the EOS R form factor purely for ergonomics, build quality and usability.



Who is delusional now?


----------



## 4fun (Nov 26, 2018)

> _That’s right. Since *EOS R is a full-size system*, _



now, how much clearer can a statement be? EOS R is FF.
Anybody who interprets it as "EOS R currently is FF, but may well also be APS-C in the future" is ... wrong. Because then the Canon guy would likely have added something along the lines of "but we don't rule out anything, including APS-C sensor in the future". He did not. Quite the opposite, he explained, why it would make no sense at all: 


> *because it can not be downsized to EOS M size*.


Any "alternative interpretation" is totally delusional.

APS-C in EOS R is not needed. It does not make any sense. For APS-C sensors Canon has the excellent EOS M series ... small, good and relatively inexpensive - everything a crop system should be. If it is bigger or more expensive it better be FF. 

It is almost inconceivable to me, how some people have difficulty understanding this absolutely clear statement and the absolutely clear logic behind it.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 26, 2018)

Absolutely delusional now! 

I off here and leave this thread again to those who prefer talking about fisheyes.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Nov 27, 2018)

I have a Rokinon fish eye for my eos M5, and an 8-15mm fisheye for my 7dm2 and 6D. The 8-15mm fisheye on the M5 is really unbalanced. I hope a 7dm3 replacement is available in a M version. The current M cameras focusing in low light is so bad, let alone, the shutter has a huge delay in releasing in dark environments when a flash is attached.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 27, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> The current M cameras focusing in low light is so bad,



which ones specifically?


----------



## nchoh (Nov 27, 2018)

For those who cannot break it down...

_A - [Since EOS R is a full-size *system*,]
B- [ it can not be downsized to EOS M size.]_

A - here EOS R is being referred to as the system.
B- here EOS M is being referred to as the body. 

It's a bit confusing but basically it means that the R cameras can never be as small as the M cameras, which doesn't preclude them from having APS-C sensors... because the throat and the flange distance of the R system is bigger than the M system, so (to be pedantic) the EOS R system can not be downsized to EOS M body size, (even though it can have an APS-C sensor.)


----------



## 4fun (Nov 27, 2018)

nchoh said:


> ... which doesn't preclude them from having APS-C sensors...



exactly that's the delusional/wishful/imagined part NOT included in the interview.

The Canon guy said: "EOS R is an FF system."
And he says: R-mount too big for APS-C cameras, we got M for that. 

At least to me the meaning is clear: EOS R = FF all the way, exclusively. EOS M = APS-C, all the way, exclusively.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 28, 2018)

nchoh said:


> For those who cannot break it down...
> 
> _A - [Since EOS R is a full-size *system*,]
> B- [ it can not be downsized to EOS M size.]_
> ...





4fun said:


> exactly that's the delusional/wishful/imagined part NOT included in the interview.
> 
> The Canon guy said: "EOS R is an* FF system*."
> And he says: R-mount too big for APS-C cameras, we got M for that.
> ...




No. In the article that has been quoted, the quote is;
"Since EOS R is a *full-size *system, it can not be downsized to EOS M size "

Article is linked below for reference;
https://www.canonrumors.com/another-interview-about-the-eos-r-and-talk-of-an-aps-c-eos-r-body/


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

OMG. "full-size" = "full frame" sensor, what else.

see same google translation of multiple occurences of the term in the very interview:


> (About *full size mirrorless *camera)





> - Another thing about EOS M. In the impression at the recital, I felt that EOS M will continue and strengthen in the future.
> That's right. Since *EOS R is a full-size system*, it can not be downsized to EOS M size. EOS M has a role / existence value as an APS - C system.





> Although it has already deployed the EOS M series featuring small size and light weight as a mirrorless camera, it was a piece lacking "*full size mirrorless camera*" in the lineup.



The bots at Google are simply not yet smart enough to translate "full size" in context of cameras/imaging sensors as "full frame".

Really amazing, how hard some people try to read the exact opposite into an entirely clear statement.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> OMG. ... Really amazing, how hard some people try to read the exact opposite into an entirely clear statement.


OMG??? 
Did you ever look into the mirror after such an ingenuous statement?
If not, try it out - especially try it while thinking if somebody could have understood something (some statement, some interview) better than you actually did. 
Enjoy the result


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2018)

nchoh said:


> No. In the article that has been quoted, the quote is;
> "Since EOS R is a *full-size *system, it can not be downsized to EOS M size "
> 
> Article is linked below for reference;
> https://www.canonrumors.com/another-interview-about-the-eos-r-and-talk-of-an-aps-c-eos-r-body/


Thanks,* nchoh* , for trying to second me but as 4fun was not willing or able to read the interview as you, me, canonrumors and others did it will not help to post that link again. 
I tried so before in post #14 but it didn't get through.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> OMG???
> Did you ever look into the mirror after such an ingenuous statement?
> If not, try it out - especially try it while thinking if somebody could have understood something (some statement, some interview) better than you actually did.
> Enjoy the result



Even after looking in the mirror I cannot detect any trace of ambiguity in the (translated) interview. It is as clear as day that the Canon guy is saying EOS R = FF. EOS M = APS-C.

True, he does not add: "exclusively". But it is not necessary to understand his statement. Unless someone really tries hard to mis-understand it to mean what they wish for. BIG chunky body with crop sensor inside and R mount up front for little money along with an equally good and affordable Canon RF 150-600/3.5-5.6 IS lens and a few equally good and inexpensive shorter "RF-S" crop zooms. "Just like EF-S back in the day". But ... it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> ... It is as clear as day that the Canon guy is saying EOS R = FF. EOS M = APS-C. ...


It is not. None of us has the right to claim that your or my or another persepective of this is the truth or not.

And

if you read again what Craig said about this interview,
if you combine it with his [CR2] source, that there will/could be an APS-C EOS R body,
if you understand that this quote of the interview is not about what will be made or not, but about physical dimensions
if you understand that there is a relevant piece of market an EOS M cannot cover
if you understand that Canon is about running a company caring about gaining/keeping markets
then mayby you can agree that there is an aceptable high possibility of an APS-C EOS R body.
Not more, not less. And this is, what it's all about.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

well, we have
a) a very clear unambiguous statement by a qualified Canon representative
b) a whole lot of conjecture, rumors and guessing

Guess, which one I go with? 

And yes, of course it is about physical size. It does not make sense for Canon to make "large cameras with small sensors inside", when they already have large cameras with large sensor [EOS R] and small cameras with smaller sensors [EOS M] on offer.

I still think a "mirrorfree 7D III" in form an upcoming top-of-the-line EOS M model is more likely. But yes, to may knowledge no Canon guy has said something to that effect publicly.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> well, we have
> a) a very clear unambiguous statement by a qualified Canon representative
> b) a whole lot of conjecture, rumors and guessing
> 
> ...




So what happens when EF lenses are no longer produced? Then you have RF and EF-M but you can't mount RF on EF-M. So what is more likely? Canon introduces RF-S and produces a limited line of RF-S lenses to supplement RF lenses just as it had with EF-S for EF. Or the EF-M ecosystem becomes like Fuji's with a lot of options in price and size because only EF-M lenses will mount on M cameras. I think Canon goes with RF-S. It requires a lot fewer lenses and resources, and Canon avoids developing two entire incompatible ecosystems. The M system will survive as it is now but it won't have a full lens ecosystem.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> And yes, of course it is about physical size. It does not make sense for Canon to make "large cameras with small sensors inside",


Why have they then done it in the not so distant past when there were also smaller cameras with smaller sensors (200D)available? Despite the 200D they built the bulky 80D with an APS-C sensor.
The 80D is similar in size to the EOS R and has an APS-C sensor. And the 80 D is also not much taller than the full frame 6DII.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> well, we have
> a) a very clear unambiguous statement by a qualified Canon representative


Wrong!
This statement is not "very clear" not even "clear".
And the only "unambiguous" about this is that the Canon rep is refering to physical dimensions, but not to product lines and their further development.
But you seem to want to make it clear just to keep us others in motion and to keep your limited perspective alive.
This statement is not clear yet.
And you and I haven't been there. So nobody of us might know what got lost in translation as well.
Please just agree to accept this just as I agree that Canon really might think in the way you might think they do so.
Fullstop! (familiar name to you?)


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

@Maximilian - i agree we don't know what Canon will REALLY do in the end. 

but what the Canon guy in the interview said was absolutely unambigous and as clear as speech can be. straight question, straight answer. no room for alternative interpretations.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> The M system will survive as it is now but it won't have a full lens ecosystem.



yes. it does not need to. it is a system for those who prefer small and light and inexpensive. Which is not possible for longer tele lenses. 

Canon wants to sell as many (higher priced) FF cameras and lenses as possible. And they offer a small & light system as a secondary, separate system for FF owners (they prefer us buying their M system rather than a crop system from Fuji or Sony) and for all those who prefer smaller/lighter/less expensive (rather than buying one from Fuji or Sony). 

same as in the DSLR days. Sony went with 1 mount for mirrorfree, Nikon is open (whether they will or won't offer crop-sensor mirrorfree at all and if so, with "bigger than necessary" Z mount), Canon had 2 mounts and will have 2 mounts and 2 lineups in the future. 

only difference to EF/EF-S situation is that RF lenses dont fit M mount. no big deal from Canon's perspective and also from majority of users. "Rebel + EF-S kit zoom" buyers typically did not buy a lot of EF glass. and "Typical" EOS M buyers will also not be interested to mount RF 28-70/2.0 or future RF long teles - no matter whether EOS M is their only system or a second system in addition to EOS R.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> ... what the Canon guy in the interview said was absolutely unambigous and as clear as speech can be. straight question, straight answer. no room for alternative interpretations.


*@4fun*, please give me one last try:

As as side note:
Funny thing is that I am not into the 7D2 sucessor market and that I have no reason to fantasize about a mirrorless successor.

But I am intelligent enough to understand that if a Canon representive is asked 


> about EOS M and EOS R and how they fit in the Canon lineup (Google translated)


that he could also understand this question as "does the EOS M still have a place in the Canon lineup? (or will it be discontinued)". 
And then he answers 


> Since EOS R is a full-size system, it can not be downsized to EOS M size. EOS M has a role/existence value as an APS-C system


meaning: "(dont worry!) EOS M will stay, because Canon cannot make EOS R as small as that."

And if some high ambitious prosumers want to make use of the high performance RF lenses and if they want to have the "reach" of an APS-C sensor, so why not give them A body with RF flange and an APS-C sensor and call it a 7D2 successor. 
Why not? Just because it won't fit in your "EOS M must be the only Canon APS-C system" universe?

I don't get this narrowmindedness - sorry for calling you that.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 28, 2018)

4fun said:


> ...
> 
> only difference to EF/EF-S situation is that RF lenses dont fit M mount. no big deal from Canon's perspective and also from majority of users. "Rebel + EF-S kit zoom" buyers typically did not buy a lot of EF glass. and "Typical" EOS M buyers will also not be interested to mount RF 28-70/2.0 or future RF long teles - no matter whether EOS M is their only system or a second system in addition to EOS R.



And that is the biggest reason why Canon needs RF-S. Canon needs users of Canon APS-C to generate demand for their FF products, and that is most easily done when lenses can be used on multiple systems. It is easier for Canon to market to its APS-C users to migrate to FF than it is to convince Fuji/Sony/Nikon users to switch to Canon. The only way your argument makes sense is if Canon can convince a lot more of the Fuji/Sony/Nikon users to switch to Canon FF from whatever they're using. And given that Sony has grown based on luring away users from other systems, that argument has no weight.


----------



## 4fun (Nov 28, 2018)

nope. the old style "feeder thing" from APSC to FF is not needed any longer. EF-S was borne out of sheer necessity, because FF systems were prohibitively expensive for "average" new and existing customers (coming from analog SLR).

the difference is much smaller today and should/will shrink further with mirrorfree systems. i think we will see 999 for "entry level" FF ILCs pretty soon.

depending on preferences and available budget, buyers either chose small/light/inexpensive (crop) or larger/"better"/more expensive (full frame) ... or both.

and if someone starts with Canon EOS M and likes it, they are very likely to consider Canon as 1st choice if they want to add or move to an FF system. Even when it means buying new lenses. would they switch to a different brand the'd also have to buy new lenses ... and learn a different UI in addition ... and possibly switch forums. Sonyalpharumors, anyone?


----------

