01-17-2019, 09:19 PM
I think mechanical strength plays a factor as well. Imagine coupling a 500/4 to a pro-series MILC, a future 1D-R or whatever. A 54 mm wide mount will be much stronger than a 35 mm wide mount.
EF-M was designed for lightweight little cameras. EF and R are for big and heavy pro gear.
Canon's R-mount is brilliant for its backward compatibility with EF glass. It'll be interesting to see if Canon puts out an R-mount APSC-sensor camera. If so I could mount my EF-S lenses as well as my EF lenses (with EF converter), as well as R-mount full-frame glass and possible future R-mount APSC glass. It'd be the universal camera on which you could mount just about anything. I see people speculating about an R-mount APSC camera at Canonrumors.
I really enjoyed Klaus' review of the new 50/1.2. To me the big leap forward here is the lack of (or much reduced) clipping of the bokeh balls. I imagine the lack of a mirror box and the wide throat diameter are to be thanked for this. I imagine that larger rear elements, as allowed by the R-mount rather than the M-mount, has its advantages for fast lenses.
Now, what is the future of EF-M? I have no clue. But R is a brilliant move by Canon. Hopefully the power consumption of the viewfinder will be reduced as the R line evolves.
EF-M was designed for lightweight little cameras. EF and R are for big and heavy pro gear.
Canon's R-mount is brilliant for its backward compatibility with EF glass. It'll be interesting to see if Canon puts out an R-mount APSC-sensor camera. If so I could mount my EF-S lenses as well as my EF lenses (with EF converter), as well as R-mount full-frame glass and possible future R-mount APSC glass. It'd be the universal camera on which you could mount just about anything. I see people speculating about an R-mount APSC camera at Canonrumors.
I really enjoyed Klaus' review of the new 50/1.2. To me the big leap forward here is the lack of (or much reduced) clipping of the bokeh balls. I imagine the lack of a mirror box and the wide throat diameter are to be thanked for this. I imagine that larger rear elements, as allowed by the R-mount rather than the M-mount, has its advantages for fast lenses.
Now, what is the future of EF-M? I have no clue. But R is a brilliant move by Canon. Hopefully the power consumption of the viewfinder will be reduced as the R line evolves.