# Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 28, 2022)

> We have now heard from a couple of trustworthy sources that Canon plans to launch two RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7 this year.
> At this time, we do not know what the lenses will be, but we have had a Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on our roadmap for a long time, could this be an RF-S lens?
> Canon Rumors in the past has been of the opinion that RF-S lenses don’t make much sense, but we can’t be right all of the time. If there are some interesting designs and form factors, they could be a good addition to the RF mount lineup.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## scyrene (Apr 28, 2022)

Just as with the R7, I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## john1970 (Apr 28, 2022)

An RFS lens lineup does not make sense to me, but what do I know. The RFS would be a mirrorless equivalent of the EF-S. Wait and see, but I would only buy RF lenses so they could be used on both cropped and full frame mounts.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 28, 2022)

A separate RF-S mount would make very little sense but I guess RF-S would make a good name for RF lenses with an APS-C image circle


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 28, 2022)

More data please, such as a few hundred posts on flange distances and image circles


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.

I declare shenanigans.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 28, 2022)

So similar to RF lenses heavy vignetting for these hypothetical crop RF lenses.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 28, 2022)

Some people freak out imagining APS-C cameras for RF-mount ... guess this rumor will kill them instantly!


----------



## SnowMiku (Apr 28, 2022)

If they only plan to release the R7 as APS-C then there wouldn't be much point in making RF-S lenses as the 7 series is aimed at professional telephoto wildlife and sports. I can only see the RF-S lens happening if they replace the M series with RF equivalents. Or they could make lenses with a APS-C image circle and label it as RF but that would be confusing for the rumored entry level RF full frame bodies.


----------



## bf (Apr 28, 2022)

Keep calm and carry on EFM mount!


----------



## vondo (Apr 28, 2022)

Obviously a niche application, but I scuba dive with an Olympus u4/3 setup because Canon doesn't have a similar compact setup and diving with a full frame camera is out of my desire-level. So for this application, you'd need a true wide-angle (10 mm maximum) ability (maybe zoom) and something like the 50-60mm macro.

Of course, how compact could such a setup be with the RF mount? That's the beauty of the u4/3 system is the entire system is downsized. But not having to have two incompatible systems for different purposes would be fantastic.


----------



## neurorx (Apr 28, 2022)

Please no, just build out the RF lens line and make them available without large backordering....


----------



## unfocused (Apr 28, 2022)

Let's take a breath here. An RF-S lens does not create the same mounting issues as EF-S lenses did. An RF-S lens could be mounted on any full frame R body and simply crop automatically, just as EF-S lenses do with the R mount adapters. Personally, I would prefer something wider than 18-45 and think an RF-S version of the 15-85 EF-S makes the most sense, along with a RF-S 10-22. Those would be the only two lenses Canon would need to offer if they limit the R series to just the R7 crop body.

Indeed, Canon could offer those two lenses and then leave the M and R lines to fight it out amongst themselves while Canon determines which way to go.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 28, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> A separate RF-S mount would make very little sense but I guess RF-S would make a good name for RF lenses with an APS-C image circle



Some of the EF-S lenses went deep enough into the camera for a full frame mirror to hit them, so Canon had to create a mechanical barrier preventing them being mounted on full frame cameras.

RF is mirrorless, so that is not an issue, and there's no reason to create a separate mount. The camera could deduce the image's power of coverage from its ID, and auto switch to crop, same as it does when EF-S lenses are mounted via the EF-to-RF adapter.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Apr 28, 2022)

It would make sense to me, but...


> we have had a Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on our roadmap for a long time, could this be an RF-S lens


that would be the most boring kit-lens ever made, and I don't imagine it would have much appeal to R7 users.

Something equivalent to the EF-S 15-85 would make much more sense to me. On the other hand I'm so happy with the EF-S version of that, that I find it hard to imagine it could be much improved in an RF mount version.

If Canon was going to make one _and only one_ APS-C RF lens, I would vote for a wideangle zoom. I imagine with the shorter flange distance on RF mount, it would be possible to make something a bit wider than EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18, without sacrificing optical performance and without increasing size/weight compared to EF-S 10-22 w/adapter. A 9-20mm or maybe even an 8(.5)-18mm?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.
> 
> I declare shenanigans.


Oh, there has been some. I don't remember exact specs of them, except there was a 100-400mm zoom patent that looked very much like the 100-400mm on the roadmap. And just recently there has been some primes (though, I expect zooms if Canon only releases two lenses):








キヤノンのAPS-Cミラーレス用の「24mm F1.4」「28mm F1.4」「35mm F1.4」の特許


キヤノンがAPS-C用の大口径広角･標準レンズ群の実施例を含む、収差が少なく高速...



digicame--info-com.translate.goog


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Oh, there has been some. I don't remember exact specs of them, except there was a 100-400mm zoom patent that looked very much like the 100-400mm on the roadmap. And just recently there has been some primes (though, I expect zooms if Canon only releases two lenses):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! This is quite recent. The claim section, "An object of the present invention is to provide an optical system that has less aberration fluctuation during focusing," seems better aligned with cinema applications (the stated image height works for s35, too).


----------



## Aaron D (Apr 28, 2022)

Why not? Use the same physical mount. 

And I can imagine picking up a standard zoom and using it on my R5 set in crop mode. That could be a great travel camera without having to commit to a dedicated APS-C body.


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 28, 2022)

I think Nikon has a whopping two Z-DX lenses. Having an APS-C body and zero APS-C specific lenses is bad marketing.


----------



## mccasi (Apr 28, 2022)

What no one has mentioned is that we already have a crop factor RF camera: the C70!
What i would conclude is that it doesn't make sense to have consumer zoom lenses for the R7 and C70:
The R7 being somewhere between R6/R5 in size is not a compact camera, so no one would come up with the idea that it's an EOS M competitor and compact consumer zooms or even consumer primes don't make much sense.

Having an RP/R10 with small cleap FF lenses is much better consumer strat. 

If only they would make an uncompromised compact body, equivalent to the Sony A7C, with uncompromised but compact L primes.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 28, 2022)

I think if we get an R7 that we will get a few RF-S lenses. Not a full line up, but 2 or 3 standard lenses to bundle with the crop sensor camera. A kit lens and a short tele zoom maybe. Wouldn’t be that difficult or expensive for Canon to knock out an RF crop kit lens.


----------



## reefroamer (Apr 28, 2022)

Couldn’t Canon just weld an EF-RF adapter on the back of an EF-S 10-18 or 10-22, jack the price up and call it a day?


----------



## bichex (Apr 28, 2022)

Waiting for an R7. A better AF than my 7DII will be enough for me.
I think a pair of RFS lenses is an obvious way to go and there will always be people who buy it. By the way the 10-18 is good enough for landscapes. I'm not a fan of image quality so AF is my top priority.


----------



## melgross (Apr 28, 2022)

The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?

I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.

the biggest complaints over the years from those using APS-C bodies has been the poor selection of lenses and the less than stellar quality of those that do exist.

so will Canon treat this as just a consumer level body using FF lenses, a consumer level body with a handful of mediocre lenses, or as a semi pro, or even pro level body with some pro level lenses?

I assume a lot depends on how worried they are over the amount the latter would cannibalize their FF bodies and lenses. Besides, I thought the push these days was “everything FF.”


----------



## dilbert (Apr 28, 2022)

With an image height that is short of the full frame sensor, either Canon brings out a "small" full frame sensor (Canon's APS-C is smaller than Nikon's APS-C) or perhaps this lens is an RF-S lens:








Patent: Canon RF 15-28mm f/4-5.6 IS and other wide angle optical designs


Eventually we're going to see more affordable RF mount lenses from Canon and one of the obvious types of lenses they'll need is an affordable wide angle zoom



www.canonrumors.com




(there is also the possibility that the 15-28 is FF and compromised, but other possibilities exist too)


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Apr 28, 2022)

melgross said:


> The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?
> 
> I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.
> 
> ...


Unless you’ve got £30,000 to spend on a setup, a crop sensor body makes a lot of sense for birds and other wildlife. Or anything that requires reach for that matter. I could afford an R7 to go with my 100-400 but I couldn’t afford an R5 and a 600mm f4.


----------



## dilbert (Apr 28, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I can only see the RF-S lens happening if they replace the M series with RF equivalents. Or they could make lenses with a APS-C image circle and label it as RF but that would be confusing for the rumored entry level RF full frame bodies.



Which will be sad. EF-M has a size & form factor that RF/RF-S can't touch.


----------



## gregedwards69 (Apr 28, 2022)

If it follows the strategy laid down by EF-S. then RF-S as the consumer line makes sense to me.

And I say this as an M user!

I see the M as being an interim measure that will go the same way as the Sony A mount. It did the job for the time that Canon badly needed to develop a small mirrorless system in order to compete with the competition, but the development in recent years has been piecemeal, to say the least. And not to mention, the M series has more in common with Powershots than it does with the EOS line, regardless of the name. 

If canon can create a consumer-level RF-S camera and lenses, distilled from the Professional RF line - the same way as the EF-S cameras and lenses were developed for the consumer market, and retain compatibility with RF, EF and EF-S then I think it will be successful.


----------



## SHAMwow (Apr 28, 2022)

Nobody is freaking out. It's just funny the R6 is staring you guys in the face.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Apr 28, 2022)

If they will bring an sub 500€ APS-C-R-camera (R10, R100, whatever), then they should add some cheap APS-C-lenses like the typical 18-55 f/something, darker than before.
If they bring only the ... i don't know... 2000€ R7, nobody cares about a whole set of sub-par lenses. A single good 17-55 f/2.8 maybe (a lot cheaper than a RF24-70 f/2.8), and a 10-24, and thats it....


----------



## scyrene (Apr 28, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I think Nikon has a whopping two Z-DX lenses. Having an APS-C body and zero APS-C specific lenses is bad marketing.


Given how few customers (judging by Amazon question sections anyway) seem to understand the different existing mounts, I very much doubt it would make much difference.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 28, 2022)

melgross said:


> The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?
> 
> I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.
> 
> ...


Here we go again. The purpose of a 7-series camera is specifically to offer higher resolution than cropping FF can provide, for "reach", and certain 1-series features _at a much lower cost_. Small/light is catered to by the M-series. An RF camera is unlikely to be able to compete on the smallest size, and if it has the name R7 it will not be sacrificing build quality, AF, etc, which mitigates against smallness too.

If they bring out APS-C RF bodies to replace the "Rebels" then dedicated lenses makes more sense, but then I'd expect a different name.


----------



## Martin K (Apr 28, 2022)

There's nothing smaller and lighter about a 7D, unless you compare it with a 1D. Nor is it designed to be cheaper, unless you compare it with an XXD or XXD series camera. It was for those who wanted a longer field of view and rapid action, for birding and the like. An alternative or a companion to a 1D or a 5D. I would imagine the R7 would go for the same market, to satisfy all the 7D2 owners who want to modernise. For that the first RF-S lenses might be high class zooms in the 200-600 range, smaller, lighter and cheaper than the pure RF range. Such lenses might be killers in this market. The lower level stuff could come later if and when the RXX and RXXX ranges are launched.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I see the M as being an interim measure that will go the same way as the Sony A mount. It did the job for the time that Canon badly needed to develop a small mirrorless system in order to compete with the competition, but the development in recent years has been piecemeal, to say the least. And not to mention, the M series has more in common with Powershots than it does with the EOS line, regardless of the name.


That ‘interim measure’ has sat firmly on top of the Japan best-seller ILC list, holding the top 2-3 slots month after month for close to 3 years now.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 28, 2022)

Martin K said:


> There's nothing smaller and lighter about a 7D, unless you compare it with a 1D. Nor is it designed to be cheaper, unless you compare it with an XXD or XXD series camera. It was for those who wanted a longer field of view and rapid action, for birding and the like. An alternative or a companion to a 1D or a 5D. I would imagine the R7 would go for the same market, to satisfy all the 7D2 owners who want to modernise. For that the first RF-S lenses might be high class zooms in the 200-600 range, smaller, lighter and cheaper than the pure RF range. Such lenses might be killers in this market. The lower level stuff could come later if and when the RXX and RXXX ranges are launched.


There's really no point in making crop-specific zooms in the 200-600 range. People who know far more about lens design than I do have pointed out that the size, weight and cost savings would not be significant. In addition, they would be limiting lenses that are already for a niche market to an even smaller niche because full-frame users would not find them appealing. 

As far as I know, Canon only ever made one APS-C zoom telephoto, the modest 55-250mm. I can't see them breaking that pattern with R lenses. Instead, the only real "need" for lenses specific to crop sensors is in the wide angle to normal range.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 28, 2022)

mccasi said:


> What no one has mentioned is that we already have a crop factor RF camera: the C70!
> What i would conclude is that it doesn't make sense to have consumer zoom lenses for the R7 and C70:
> The R7 being somewhere between R6/R5 in size is not a compact camera, so no one would come up with the idea that it's an EOS M competitor and compact consumer zooms or even consumer primes don't make much sense.
> 
> ...


There is a size difference between the R5 and 6?


----------



## SteveC (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That ‘interim measure’ has sat firmly on top of the Japan best-seller ILC list, holding the top 2-3 slots month after month for close to 3 years now.


As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.


----------



## amfoto1 (Apr 28, 2022)

Of course Canon will introduce a couple "crop only" lenses to complement whatever APS-C RF camera they launch.

However, they will not be "RF-S" lenses. Canon has emphatically stated "there will be no EF-S lenses in the RF mount". But I think people have misinterpreted this.

It does not mean that all RF lenses will be full frame designs. Even so, of necessity there will be some "crop only" designs. But there will not be a specialized version of the RF bayonet mount designed to prevent those lenses from being used on the full frame mirrorless cameras, the way the EF-S mount does with full frame DSLRs. (A clue to this is that R-series cameras are able to use crop lenses now and shoot in a "crop mode", using only part of their sensor. This wasn't an option with Canon full frame DSLRs. But it has been a widely available feature on full frame/FX Nikon and others.)

There is no longer any need for anything like the EF-S mount. Keep in mind that when it was introduced in 2004 Canon was the only camera company offering both full frame and APS-C cameras... so in part the EF-S mount was created to prevent accidental use of the lenses on the full frame cameras. This was both to prevent user confusion and because Canon anticipated some crop specific lens designs might physically interfere the moving mirror inside a full frame DSLR. Since today's camera buyers are much more knowledgeable about the different sensor formats and lenses needed to accommodate them, because other camera and lens makers have not bothered to make a restrictive mount for their crop designs, and because the R-series are mirrorless... there no longer is need for a special mount like the EF-S.

There are rumors of some other crop only RF lenses, but primarily there need to be a general purpose "kit" lens (18-45mm) and an ultrawide (10-24mm). Both of these lenses have been on Canon's RF lens roadmap for some years now.

Full frame capable lenses lenses can serve most other purposes on an APS-C R-series camera. So why create any crop only lenses at all? Well, some reasons are that the lenses can be smaller, lighter and less expensive. They don't need to produce as large an image circle, so can use smaller diameter elements. Also, what's very wide on full frame is only marginally wide on APS-C... so there's a strong argument for a crop only ultrawide. 

Ultimately there may be a few additional crop only RF lenses, such as a compact/affordable telephoto zoom, a more premium walkaround lens, possibly a compact/affordable macro lens and possibly one or two ultracompact/"pancake" lenses. This is much like what we see now with EF-S lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> At this time, we do not know what the lenses will be, but we have had a Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM on our roadmap for a long time, could this be an RF-S lens?


Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?

The market is shrinking. Canon doesn’t need 4 levels of cameras with a full staircase on each floor, like the xD/xxD/xxxD/xxxxD nomenclature from the DSLR heyday.


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 28, 2022)

SteveC said:


> As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.


"The [M50 II] 4K/24p video is heavily cropped and you can't use the camera's dual-pixel autofocus (it's contrast-detection only)" -DPR

That doesn't sound mature to me.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?
> 
> The market is shrinking. Canon doesn’t need 4 levels of cameras with a full staircase on each floor, like the xD/xxD/xxxD/xxxxD nomenclature from the DSLR heyday.


What would be the significant difference compared to RP?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> "The [M50 II] 4K/24p video is heavily cropped and you can't use the camera's dual-pixel autofocus (it's contrast-detection only)" -DPR
> 
> That doesn't sound mature to me.


I agree. Very little about DPR is mature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

lote82 said:


> What would be the significant difference compared to RP?


Price. The RP launched at $1300.


----------



## entoman (Apr 28, 2022)

I think it's pretty obvious that *IF* the "R7" actually exists, and *IF* it is a 90D in RF clothes, that Canon would be compelled to provide it with a kit lens - probably a 18-135mm, or possibly something more ambitious, given that RF lenses tend to be better specified than EF or EF-s lenses.

On the other hand, *IF* this "R7" was to be a fully-fledged sports/wildlife body in R3 clothes, it would be aimed at an entirely different sector of the market - and that sector would likely already have an R5, R6 or R3, and would be buying the "R7" as a second body. Which means they'd probably be happy to use full frame RF lenses on both bodies.

I'd really like to think that this was going to be a sports/wildlife camera, but a hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 32MP "R7" would be a better choice, assuming that it could maintain 20fps without buffer issues.

But what I think is far more likely, is that we'll see a more consumer-orientated "budget" APS-C to compete with models from Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus.


----------



## entoman (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. Very little about DPR is mature.


That's unfair. DPR is an excellent resource, probably the best gear site on the internet.

The problem is with *some* of their commenters, not with DPR itself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> That's unfair. DPR is an excellent resource, probably the best gear site on the internet.
> 
> The problem is with *some* of their commenters, not with DPR itself.


Have you interacted with Rishi Sanyal, a DPR staff member?


----------



## entoman (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Have you interacted with Rishi Sanyal, a DPR staff member?


I've interacted with most of the DPR staff at one time or another, what's your point about Rishi?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I've interacted with most of the DPR staff at one time or another, what's your point about Rishi?


He had a rather extreme and immature reaction to having his mistakes pointed out to him.

Having said that, you're correct that DPR as a whole is not immature, although I do not trust their conclusions due to bias, which seemed to increase following their acquisition by Amazon.


----------



## entoman (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I do not trust their conclusions due to bias


I see a huge amount of ridiculous tribalism in the DPR comments section, and some in the forums, but I don't see any major bias among DPR staff for or against any particular brand, although obviously each has their own preferred system.

But we're straying off-subject here


----------



## takesome1 (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.
> 
> I declare shenanigans.


What is the term Canon used in their quarterly report. Was it "streamlined engineering"?
Did we see a patent for the EF 600mm III with an attached adapter? 
Perhaps a patent isn't required to glue an adapter on an EF-S lens.


----------



## kalieaire (Apr 28, 2022)

If they canon wants to eat up Fuji's market, which is admittedly really big, they'll need to come up with a premium L line of crop sensor lenses.

15mm (24mm eq)
22mm (35mm eq)
53mm (85mm eq)
60mm macro (100mm macro eq)
15-45mm (24-70mm eq)
15-65mm (24-105mm eq)

Fuji's crop stuff is good, I've been shooting w/ it for 2 full years now. It's nice because the equivalent system is more than 9oz lighter (when you account for lens and body w/ batteries), x-pro2 vs r5.

R5 does got the X-Pro 2 beat in cinema features for sure, but for shooting all day long events like weddings, it for sure is nicer on my hand. I quit weddings in 2014 because I was having major wrist issues and had to move to more supported studio photography like fashion work.

I sort of see Canon like the Toyota of the camera industry. Large hulking behemoth, selling Toyota Camrys, 4runners, Tacomas, Corollas, Tundras, and Highlanders. Nothing exceptionally sparkly. They may sell the GT86 and the Supra, but they miss the mark in terms of what the market is asking for, and when they don't sell well, they add features at the worst time (like at the beginning of a recession) and justify killing off a line.

They floundered with the EOS M Line, hopefully they'll do better this time amidst a burgeoning global recession mid-pandemic.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 28, 2022)

melgross said:


> The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?
> 
> I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.
> 
> ...


Yet how many did and still do use the 7D series with EF-L lenses? I know I did and with wonderful results when able to stay at 6400 iso or lower. I never for once thought APS-C meant smaller, lighter weight. It's not M43 after all. It was just a choice, more choices, better for everyone.


----------



## gregedwards69 (Apr 28, 2022)

SteveC said:


> As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.


I didn’t say it’s “about to be killed”. But I do feel that even as a mature product it will simply be kept on life support by canon, until it’s eventually phased out, similar to Sony did with the A mount.

What I did say however is I am an M user. I’m quite happy with it too.

I’m quite aware it’s a top-selling camera system in Japan, but what about outside of Japan? And I just wonder where the future lies for the M system if RF-S comes to pass.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Price. The RP launched at $1300.


So you think there's a bigger market for a 2nd(!) cheap but (even more!) crippled ff-camera (beside all other ff-options) than for the first(!) topnotch APS-C Wildlife camera? Funny!


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.



I found these APS-C - maybe RF - on Canon News:









Canon Patent Application: RF APS-C Mirrorless kit lens


I'm going to go out on a limb more than I usually do in classifying these APS-C mirrorless lenses because of the nature of this patent application. Three reasons make me think this is an RF mount patent application; All the lenses have a very relaxed back focus distance, far greater than the...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: Canon Mirrorless Super-35 16-55 F2.8


In this patent application canon describes a rather complex 16-55mm F2.8 with a image height of 14mm. That's larger than their usual APS-C image height of 13.66mm and 14mm is usually describes a super 35 image sensor (which has a 27.2mm diagonal). However, there isn't a doubt that if Canon is...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: Mirrorless APS-C kit telephoto zoom


In this patent application, Canon is attempting to patent a mirrorless APS-C telephoto zoom. With any telephoto, it's nearly impossible to tell what mount this could be made for, as either the EOS-M or the EOS-RF mount are very similar in back focus distances. All these embodiments are for a...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: APS-C Mirrorless Superzooms


An APS-C patent application has appeared for Canon mirrorless cameras. With these three embodiments showing a very short backfocus, it's unlikely these lenses would be created for the RF mount. Canon 18-240mm F4-8.0 focus distance 18.49 59.57 242.50 F-number 4.12 6.60...



www.canonnews.com





4 fullframe + 1 APS-C:
https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-mirrorless-kit-lenses








Canon Patent Application: APS-C mirorless zoom


Canon recently had a patent application for a mirrorless zoom. While this is pretty normal, perhaps the timing is not. The EOS-M system already has a mirrorless zoom lens for this focal, so either it's an upgrade, or Canon is looking at doing new APS-C lenses for mirrorless for perhaps the RF...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: Canon 100-400 F5.5-7.1 APS-C Lens (Whoops!)


I'm sure this patent application will cause some to lose their minds given all I have seen about F7.1 lately. However, I do think something like this would make a nice little consumer zoom. The embodiment shown has two focus groups, and only 14 elements, so it should be relatively light and...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: Canon APS-C Mirrorless prime lenses


We have discovered a bunch of fast APS-C prime lenses that Canon has applied for the patent on. I could probably speak for many EOS-M users by suggesting that these would be a welcomed addition to the EOS-M system. While two are right around the excellent 32mm 1.4 that Canon has already...



www.canonnews.com













Canon Patent Application: APS-C mirrorless kit lenses


Let the debates start on whether or not this is for the EF-M mount or the EF-M mount. I will suggest that most of these are for the 18mm EF-M mount, as they get quite close to the sensor with their BF distance, and that's just easier to do with the EF-M mount than it is the RF mount.focal length...



www.canonnews.com





But no super-wide zooms and no standard-zooms that hits bulls eye for me (nothing seem to really compete with the EF-S 15-85mm). Most of them (as far as I can see) also requires optical correction in the wide end. I hate that trend :-( ...


----------



## dolina (Apr 28, 2022)

I'd be pleasantly surprised to see this occurring when sales of ILCs have dropped to year 2006 levels.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 28, 2022)

dolina said:


> I'd be pleasantly surprised to see this occurring when sales of ILCs have dropped to year 2006 levels.


The 5D3 launch, right there in the heyday!


----------



## unfocused (Apr 28, 2022)

dolina said:


> I'd be pleasantly surprised to see this occurring when sales of ILCs have dropped to year 2006 levels.


Most interesting thing to me is that mirrorless sales are flat while DSLRs have dropped. Mirrorless looks successful when you look at percentages, but not so much when you look at raw numbers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> I see a huge amount of ridiculous tribalism in the DPR comments section, and some in the forums, but I don't see any major bias among DPR staff for or against any particular brand


Some of their articles praising Nikon over other systems had a buried footnote, “This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.”

DPR spent years bashing Canon’s low ISO DR (including in their action-oriented bodies that had better high ISO performance than competitors) and praising Sony and Nikon (often with Sony sensors) for low ISO DR. Then, when the Nikon D5 came out with substantially less low ISO DR than other current Canon and Sony bodies, they praised the D5’s high ISO performance and said its low ISO DR was fine unless perhaps you were a hardcore landscape shooter.



entoman said:


> although obviously each has their own preferred system.


That’s part of the bias, albeit less overt. Canon gear is reviewed by people who are not actual users of Canon gear. On one occasion, automatic AF point selection was deemed poor because it didn’t match the behavior of his chosen system, despite the fact that the Canon AF system was performing as intended; the reviewer was unaware of how the Canon AF system was designed to behave. Simply RTFM would have helped there, and also in the case where AF tracking was denigrated even though the reviewer was using settings that the manual recommended against.



entoman said:


> But we're straying off-subject here


That is the nature of forums.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2022)

kalieaire said:


> They floundered with the EOS M Line, hopefully they'll do better this time amidst a burgeoning global recession mid-pandemic.


It’s only the best-selling MILC line, so yeah, total flub by Canon. Or by you. I think we all know which it is.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Apr 28, 2022)

Interesting rumor.

I've said many times that "RF-S" could be used as simply a product designation to indicate those RF lenses with a crop image circle. Put it on your FF R camera, it goes into crop mode automatically. There's no need to make the RF-S lenses physically incompatible with FF bodies like the EF-S lenses were. Those had to be, because they had shorter back-focus and wouldn't work with a full-size reflex mirror.

I think of an "R7" as the high-end APS-C birds/sports/action photography camera, which would mostly be coupled with a long telephoto lens. There's no need for RF-S teles because the cost and construction of a long lens doesn't benefit much from the reduced image circle (so I've been told; I'm not an optical engineer). That's why there were never any EF-S lenses longer than 255 mm or EF-M lenses longer than 200 (again, so I've been told).

So if the typical R7 user will mainly be using teles, maybe Canon could do the 18-45 for those times when you want a "normal" lens. But otherwise, there's not a lot of need for an RF-S lens "lineup" in the worldview I just presented

Unless... Canon's RF APS-C plans go beyond an R7. Maybe Canon is still planning for that RF Rebel line we've heard speculation about. Maybe the entry level R body will be APS-C. Maybe the much-prognosticated demise of the M in favor of the R is still in the works. I find it hard to believe there's still that much of an entry level camera market anymore, having been subsumed by cell phones, but Canon's product planners have their vision and view of what the product line should and shouldn't be.

All rumors and speculation for now, of course.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Apr 28, 2022)

Lets hope RF-S just means smaller image circle and subsequent smaller cost, not an inability to mount an RF-S lens on an RF body like what Canon did with EF-S lenses.

It could also literally be an update to the EF-M mount where it's the EF-M mount, but with the added pins that came with the RF mount, though I'd personally prefer just one mount, RF, and the camera just detects the lens image circle and does the right thing.


----------



## Jethro (Apr 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?


Interesting speculation - there were pretty strong rumours last year that a low-$ FF R series body (maybe even 2) was coming in first-half 2022, which has gone very quiet. Maybe there is a convergence between those rumours. Although the specs included in the R7 thread included a BSI APS-C sensor ...

If it WAS a lower-$ body (maybe a FF sensor optimised for cropped use), then having 1 or 2 presumably smaller profile crop lenses released as kit lenses would make sense. Whereas it would make less sense to release such lenses if the R7 is a semi-pro successor to the 7D II.


----------



## flaviojzk (Apr 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I think Nikon has a whopping two Z-DX lenses. Having an APS-C body and zero APS-C specific lenses is bad marketing.


In fact they have 3: 16-50, 50-250 and now the 18-140 travel zoom. I think Canon could take a similar path for RF-S and add a consumer wide angle zoom and perhaps a pancake such as the 24mm.


----------



## Czardoom (Apr 29, 2022)

My guess is that Canon will put out a number of cameras to see what "sticks" so to speak. So the idea that they would try one or more APS-C cameras is not unusual. If rumors regarding the R7 are accurate, there we have the high-end model for birders and wildlife. It's certainly possible that we will see low-end APS-C models, too, (perhaps using the current RP body) and those will need a kit lens. So, no surprise if we have one or two RF-S lenses (RF mount, smaller image circle), although I would also not be surprised if we have have a kit lens with FF image circle that will double as a semi-wide consumer level FF lens. If Canon sees that Rebel equivalent RF crop cameras sell as well as the M cameras, then they may decide to replace M with RF crop. It's all still up in the air, in all likelihood as the market is in such flux. 5 years from now we may know what "Sticks" and what doesn't. Only forum dwellers seem to be in such a hurry to know the future of the camera lineup(s).


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 29, 2022)

vondo said:


> Obviously a niche application, but I scuba dive with an Olympus u4/3 setup because Canon doesn't have a similar compact setup and diving with a full frame camera is out of my desire-level. So for this application, you'd need a true wide-angle (10 mm maximum) ability (maybe zoom) and something like the 50-60mm macro.
> 
> Of course, how compact could such a setup be with the RF mount? That's the beauty of the u4/3 system is the entire system is downsized. But not having to have two incompatible systems for different purposes would be fantastic.


The Canon SL2/200D with EH-s lenses is a compact solution and has housings like https://www.ikelite.com/products/200dlm-c-underwater-ttl-housing-for-canon-eos-200d-rebel-sl2-dslr
I agree that an equivalent to the EFs 10-22mm would be needed.
Your comment about an equivalent for the EFs60mm macro is an interesting one. Most users in my opinion want working macro distance as a positive attribute for APS-c sensors for nervous subjects but a 60mm compact macro for underwater would be a niche use lens.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 29, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> Couldn’t Canon just weld an EF-RF adapter on the back of an EF-S 10-18 or 10-22, jack the price up and call it a day?


Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 29, 2022)

kalieaire said:


> If they canon wants to eat up Fuji's market, which is admittedly really big, they'll need to come up with a premium L line of crop sensor lenses.


"Really big"?? What % marketshare does Fuji represent (both 4/3 and medium format)? 
I am not saying that they don't have an interesting product niche but I can't see Canon wanting to dilute their focus by duplicating the Fuji mature lineup.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 29, 2022)

I would suggest that 7D users primarily used EF lenses for reach ie pixel-density-on-subject (big whites, 70-200mm rather than expensive 300mm lenses etc) and macro working distance with the 100mm/180mm.
To complete the focal range, only wide angle needs to be catered for. This can obviously be done using adapted EFs lenses today but not natively with faster RF protocols/control ring.
A cheap/small RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (on the roadmap) would meet that general wider angle usage noting that it doesn't need to be labelled RFs as the crop mode is enabled automatically on R bodies giving focal range 29-72mm.
The only other lens I can think of would be an equivalent to the EFs10-22mm which is a good lens and perhaps just welding on the adapter would be sufficient to call it RFs.

@vondo does bring up a niche usage of the compact EFs 60mm macro for underwater use but you can still use that adapted onto the RF mount (or 200D etc).


----------



## becceric (Apr 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes


I can’t believe the secret’s out...


----------



## Skux (Apr 29, 2022)

I'm thinking no. The R7 will likely be a high-end sports/wildlife specialist camera that people will be happy to use with full frame supertelephoto lenses.

If they do, they're going to need something much better than an 18-45mm, which would be a super weak offering even as a kit lens, and doesn't make sense to pair with an R7. Perhaps there is a low-end crop sensor camera in the works too which would finally put EF-M to bed.


----------



## David - Sydney (Apr 29, 2022)

Skux said:


> I'm thinking no. The R7 will likely be a high-end sports/wildlife specialist camera that people will be happy to use with full frame supertelephoto lenses.
> 
> If they do, they're going to need something much better than an 18-45mm, which would be a super weak offering even as a kit lens, and doesn't make sense to pair with an R7.


Those users can always use the existing RF15-35mm/2.8 or RF14-35mm/4 or even adapted EF11-24mm/4. 
What is missing is a reasonably priced wide RF angle going to 10mm (16mm full frame equivalent).


Skux said:


> Perhaps there is a low-end crop sensor camera in the works too which would finally put EF-M to bed.


EF-M is fine as it is. It could be even better with newer bodies/lenses but it is fit-for-purpose in its market niche even if you are not its target audience.
Why would Canon discontinue a profitable and mature market segment?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Why would Canon discontinue a profitable and mature market segment?


It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.

Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.


----------



## Iain L (Apr 29, 2022)

18-45mm is a good length for a crop sensor. The aperture doesn’t suggest amazing quality to me though. It would be a handy backup for a 7 owner’s bag, since people don’t necessarily want to shoot birds all day long without a single one of the landscape they’re in, but surely the main target would be as a kit lens for a hypothetical cheaper crop body.

Canon has sold loads and loads of EF-S bodies to people who want something a bit better than a phone, but aren’t prepared to either throw thousands at a new hobby, or in the other direction tie themselves to EF-M with no upgrade path to full frame. Surely that’s part of where you go with this?


----------



## davidespinosa (Apr 29, 2022)

Predictions, based on pure speculation:

(1) No one who reads canonrumors will buy RF-S _anything_.

(2) RF-S will outsell full-frame RF by a wide margin.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.
> 
> Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.


Talking over and over about M line in inappropriate threads doesn't make it look alive.
If it makes you feel more comfort ... it's not dead, it's just sleeping for a very long time!


----------



## entoman (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some of their articles praising Nikon over other systems had a buried footnote, “This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.”


I don't think the "sponsored content" issues exist any longer - due to criticisms, dpr now make it very obvious when an article is sponsored. But yes, it has been an issue in the past, and with many sites, not just dpr.


neuroanatomist said:


> DPR spent years bashing Canon’s low ISO DR (including in their action-oriented bodies that had better high ISO performance than competitors) and praising Sony and Nikon (often with Sony sensors) for low ISO DR. Then, when the Nikon D5 came out with substantially less low ISO DR than other current Canon and Sony bodies, they praised the D5’s high ISO performance and said its low ISO DR was fine unless perhaps you were a hardcore landscape shooter.
> 
> That’s part of the bias, albeit less overt. Canon gear is reviewed by people who are not actual users of Canon gear. On one occasion, automatic AF point selection was deemed poor because it didn’t match the behavior of his chosen system, despite the fact that the Canon AF system was performing as intended; the reviewer was unaware of how the Canon AF system was designed to behave. Simply RTFM would have helped there, and also in the case where AF tracking was denigrated even though the reviewer was using settings that the manual recommended against.



Ideally all gear should be reviewed by users AND non-users of any particular brand. Non-users will have the advantage of being able to compare various brands, which is valuable to anyone who may themselves be considering switching. And yes, it's also important to have the perspective of an existing user, as per your example above.

Above all, IMO, it's vital that the reviewer should be a photographer experienced in the field (e.g. portraiture, sports, wildlife, landscape) that the camera is targeting, and fully understands the requirements and preferences of that sector.

I think dpr covers all these bases as well as any other site, and better than most. I'd never base a purchasing decision on the reviews from just one site or one reviewer, I read as many as are available, and try to find reviews from other wildlife/nature photographers who will understand what *I* need, far better than someone who doesn't specialise in that field.


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes


They did that with RF400 2.8L IS and RF600mm 4L IS. In 800 and 1200 lenses they also inserted improved 2X converters.


----------



## gregedwards69 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It really baffles me how people can’t grasp that Canon isn’t stupid. The M line tops the MILC sales charts in Japan and has for years.
> 
> Maybe these foolish people should head over to toyotarumors and start claiming the Corolla will soon be ‘put to bed’.


The trouble is, whilst I realise a lot of camera manufacturers are based in Japan, it is not representative of global sales or success. Nikon and Panasonic don't even feature in the top 10 selling cameras in Japan. Should they just call it quits because they're not big in japan? And FWIW, The Sony A6400 now tops the charts in Japan.

As I have already stated. I am a fan of the M series. But _IF (and that's a big IF) _an RF-S system was developed along similar lines to EF-S, I can see EF-M being slowly phased out. I highly doubt it will be dropped like a stone as yes, it's a popular system in some territories. But it's an oddball in Canon's line up, an awkward second cousin. Like Sony's A-mount. There will be no announcement, no tribute, no sunsetting event, Development will just slow down as they concentrate on RF-S and eventually stop.

Yes, there's the question of where does it leave users? Potentially, the value of M bodies and lenses will drop and I could afford to complete my system. On the other hand, a lot of people will simply jump ship for the latest and greatest adding to its demise.

We say a similar thing when Apple stopped developing Aperture. It had a lot of fans, me included. People were angry that they had invested so much time and money into it over the years. But we adapted. The software didn't just stop working. No-one died over it. And many users simply migrated to another solution.


----------



## yeahright (Apr 29, 2022)

I bet telephoto focal lengths with a smaller image circle could be sold much cheaper, so that would definitely make sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Talking over and over about M line in inappropriate threads doesn't make it look alive.
> If it makes you feel more comfort ... it's not dead, it's just sleeping for a very long time!


No, the fact that it’s the best-selling camera line in Japan and likely globally, and has been for years, is what makes it look alive. What comforts me is knowledge of facts and understanding current reality. Sadly, there are far too many people such as you in the world, who choose to believe their own distorted view of reality, ignoring facts and data.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, the fact that it’s the best-selling camera line in Japan and likely globally, and has been for years, is what makes it look alive. What comforts me is knowledge of facts and understanding current reality. Sadly, there are far too many people such as you in the world, who choose to believe their own distorted view of reality, ignoring facts and data.


But the reality consists of more facts like ...
1. Japan is not the most important sales market
2. There are zero (current) rumors about new cameras or lenses
3. Nikon and Sony have one mount for ff and APS-C. Are they "ignoring facts and data" or just stupid?

The M line had its time, but it's over. You know what M6 II and 90D had in common? Little hint ... not only the sensor!


----------



## diegopisante (Apr 29, 2022)

Canon did and will do it again, for the experienced photographers that don't make sense but if you are a beginner or do it hobby RF-S is the wai to go like they did with 17-55 2.8 IS to go a little cheaper...what doesn't make sense is they do cheaper RF 2.8 versions for the RF-S system.
As an 18 years Canon user I would love to have only one mount for every system, that would help a lot Canon ecosystem, like EOS-M also be RF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> The trouble is, whilst I realise a lot of camera manufacturers are based in Japan, it is not representative of global sales or success. Nikon and Panasonic don't even feature in the top 10 selling cameras in Japan. Should they just call it quits because they're not big in japan?


Nikon’s global ILC market share is under 15% (down from ~40% several years ago). Panasonic’s has never been over 5%. They’re not ‘big’ globally or in Jaoan Fuji is down there with Panasonic, and they’ve explicitly stated their camera division is not and not expected to be profitable, but they are keeping it active for ‘cultural and historical’ reasons.



gregedwards69 said:


> And FWIW, The Sony A6400 now tops the charts in Japan


What data are you looking at? BCN is the major aggregator of electronics retail sales in Japan. M2 kits have held the top and the second or third place for the past two weeks and the past two months (with the remaining slot in the top three being taken by a Canon DSLR).







gregedwards69 said:


> As I have already stated. I am a fan of the M series. But _IF (and that's a big IF) _an RF-S system was developed along similar lines to EF-S, I can see EF-M being slowly phased out. I highly doubt it will be dropped like a stone as yes, it's a popular system in some territories. But it's an oddball in Canon's line up, an awkward second cousin.


That makes sense right up until your last point. It’s an oddball like the is an oddball in Toyota‘s lineup.

So many people on this forum think it represents the broader market. That’s simply false. The tea leaves here and on other camera forums suggest that the DSLRs is dead. Yet a Canon DSLRs is perennially in the top three on BCN, and DSLRs still represent over 40% of the ILCs being shipped.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 29, 2022)

diegopisante said:


> but if you are a beginner or do it hobby RF-S is the wai to go


Why not EF-M or Fuji X?


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Why not EF-M or Fuji X?


one is dead the other bad (because it's not Canon) ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> But the reality consists of more facts like ...
> 1. Japan is not the most important sales market


Actually, the data from BCN on sales in Japan and the globally aggregated market share data track very closely year after year. Japan trends higher in mirrorless adoption.



lote82 said:


> 2. There are zero (current) rumors about new cameras or lenses


So what? As was said earlier:


SteveC said:


> As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.


Rumors are a step further removed. This site in particular has tended to not focus heavily on the M series.



lote82 said:


> 3. Nikon and Sony have one mount for ff and APS-C. Are they "ignoring facts and data" or just stupid?


Canon has nearly 50% of the global ILC market share, Sony has under 25% and Nikon has under 15%. Pretty clear who has taken the more successful approach. Remember that Nikon tried a dedicated crop MILC mount, the Nikon 1 – it was a failure. Canon's dedicated crop MILC mount was a success and remains so today.



lote82 said:


> The M line had its time, but it's over. You know what M6 II and 90D had in common? Little hint ... not only the sensor!



It's a best-selling camera line. You claim it's time is over.



Reality is hard for some people to grasp. You should really quit while you're behind. But more likely you'll keep posting and making yourself look even more foolish.


----------



## vangelismm (Apr 29, 2022)

Birds with R on a budget?

We will have to get over with RP II + f/11 primes.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 29, 2022)

Going back to basics, you have to ask what are the benefits of crop. When introduced, the biggest was cost of sensors. You could decrease camera component costs by $300 versus full frame in the early days. You could also produce smaller, cheaper lenses of equivalent focal length. This made crop a great budget line choice. 

Today, the component cost differences of an equivalent crop sensor versus full frame are in the mid-to-high 10s of dollars. And producing more, smaller, cheaper lenses makes less sense in terms of manufacturing scales today, even discounting the current logistics problems and shortages.

Now, the benefits of crop would be size and weight. I think the M mount cameras have a market that is more about the size and convenience of the cameras than anything else. A set of 5-7 lenses of the M mount size would make for a fine budget/small-size line, but it would be important to Canon that this new line provide and encourage an upgrade path to the R mount. This is what the M mount lacks. That the M mount has been given the Sony A mount treatment in the past couple of years is highly indicative that Canon agrees.

Logic would have Canon eventually release an R-mount equivalent of the M line, but to do so starting well in to 2023, after manufacturing issues have cleared. The line would have 4-5 lines making it a whole system sometime in late 2024. An R7 doesn't really fit into this conceptual picture unless it is purely to stratify pricing.


----------



## gregedwards69 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What data are you looking at? BCN is the major aggregator of electronics retail sales in Japan. M2 kits have held the top and the second or third place for the past two weeks and the past two months (with the remaining slot in the top three being taken by a Canon DSLR).


My apologies, I was looking at slightly older data. It was however the annual data for the best selling camera of 2021, not a week on week chart.








The 10 best-selling cameras in Japan: no full frames, no DSLRs, no Nikons!


The 10 best-selling cameras in Japan last year didn't feature a single full-frame model, a single DSLR, nor a single Nikon




www.digitalcameraworld.com





It is interesting to see that BCN's data only accounts for less than half of the Japanese retail market. It's also interesting to see there's only one new camera in the top selling cameras of the year and no DLSRS. You can take from that what you will, but I still maintain that this data should not be used as a barometer for global sales.


neuroanatomist said:


> That makes sense right up until your last point. It’s an oddball like the is an oddball in Toyota‘s lineup.
> 
> So many people on this forum think it represents the broader market. That’s simply false. The tea leaves here and on other camera forums suggest that the DSLRs is dead. Yet a Canon DSLRs is perennially in the top three on BCN, and DSLRs still represent over 40% of the ILCs being shipped.


To be fair, I only joined this forum to comment on this thread. As a member of different forums for other interests as well I'm quite aware that forum membership in no way represents the wider user base. Forum users are not the target audience of global manufacturers, but they do sometimes listen. I love it when manufacturers listen to their user base. Look at the latest M1 Macbook Pros - apple listened and reintroduced HDMI ports and SD card slots.

But on the other hand, innovation isn't just based on current sales numbers. There's an element of future sales projections too. Canon et al will do what they deem necessary to stay relevant and at the top of the sales charts. If that means phasing out EF-M in favour of RF-S, then they will.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 29, 2022)

One crackpot theory... Over the course of 2-3 years of R5 and R6 production using its own fab, Canon will have accrued a large number of rejected full frame sensors. A percentage of those will have pixel issues in the area that is outside the crop image circle. Canon could use a portion of those sensors - those that didn't have problems that affected the entire pixel row - in a crop camera, effectively with a free sensor. 

I think that would be a pretty cool "re-use" strategy, but doubt they'd do that. Would be very easy to see if they did.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Reality is hard for some people to grasp. You should really quit while you're behind. But more likely you'll keep posting and making yourself look even more foolish.


Getting personal while not having arguments doesn't make you look smart!
Time will tell who of us was foolish!


----------



## Kit. (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> one is dead the other bad (because it's not Canon) ;-)


Irrelevant for APS-C, which is already both "dead" and "bad".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> My apologies, I was looking at slightly older data. It was however the annual data for the best selling camera of 2021, not a week on week chart.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The BCN article is entitled, "The top 10 *mirrorless* interchangeable-lens cameras sold in 2021...," and there are no DLSRs on the list. I'm shocked. Simply shocked. Rather pathetic reporting on the part of Digital Camera World, IMO. BCN's weekly and monthly rankings combine all ILCs, the annual lists and 'awards' separate MILCs and DSLRs.

Since M-series cameras were in the number 2 and 3 slots for 2021, it's quite possible that the combined total surpassed Sony's 1st and 4th place slots. Regardless, the main point I was making is completely supported by both the current data and the data from 2021: the EOS M lineup remains very successful, and claims by those on this forum that the M line is 'dead' or 'dying' are simply asinine.

I agree that BCN's data are not globally applicable. Heck, the best selling MILC in Japan in 2020 was the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III. But taken together with the global market share, and with the global data on ratios of DSLRs:MILCs and APS-C:FF, it can be deduced that the EOS M line is a global best seller.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Getting personal while not having arguments doesn't make you look smart!
> Time will tell who of us was foolish!


One of us is posting data and facts. The other is posting opinions that are directly contradicted by those data and facts. The old expression about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent applies here.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Irrelevant for APS-C, which is already both "dead" and "bad".


If APS-C is "dead" and "bad" why are you talking about APS-C options?


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> One of us is posting data and facts. The other is posting opinions that are directly contradicted by those data and facts. The old expression about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent applies here.


Go and check your neurons!


----------



## gregedwards69 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The BCN article is entitled, "The top 10 *mirrorless* interchangeable-lens cameras sold in 2021...," and there are no DLSRs on the list. I'm shocked. Simply shocked. Rather pathetic reporting on the part of Digital Camera World, IMO. BCN's weekly and monthly rankings combine all ILCs, the annual lists and 'awards' separate MILCs and DSLRs.
> 
> Since M-series cameras were in the number 2 and 3 slots for 2021, it's quite possible that the combined total surpassed Sony's 1st and 4th place slots. Regardless, the main point I was making is completely supported by both the current data and the data from 2021: the EOS M lineup remains very successful, and claims by those on this forum that the M line is 'dead' or 'dying' are simply asinine.


Ah, sorry, I didn't click through to the source. My fault. It is bad form from DCW as you say. But regardless, I do think EF-M's days are numbered (even if it is healthy and selling well in some territories) _*IF (and only if) *_a new RF-S comes to pass as some of us are guessing. I just don't see a place for EF-M in Canon's future line-up a similarly priced consumer-targeted RF-S platform is released and is immediately successful and exceeds expectations. (remember, it took a few generations to get the M series to be competitive _and _they were late to the party).

This is purely conjecture based upon rumour, historical behaviour and interpretation of facts, as is the entirety of this thread, including mine and your comments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> Ah, sorry, I didn't click through to the source. My fault. It is bad form from DCW as you say. But regardless, I do think EF-M's days are numbered (even if it is healthy and selling well in some territories) _*IF (and only if) *_a new RF-S comes to pass as some of us are guessing. I just don't see a place for EF-M in Canon's future line-up a similarly priced consumer-targeted RF-S platform is released and is immediately successful and exceeds expectations. (remember, it took a few generations to get the M series to be competitive _and _they were late to the party).
> 
> This is purely conjecture based upon rumour, historical behaviour and interpretation of facts, as is the entirety of this thread, including mine and your comments.


Definitely agree. But as you said initially, a set of RF-S lenses and a set of small, APS-C bodies to match, in a price range similar to the current EOS M line, is a *big* IF. After all, what you're describing is basically an RF version of the EOS M line – low price, small bodies with APS-C sensors, and small lenses to match.

Looking back, Canon has ample sales data on how many and what type of DSLR users moved from APS-C to FF and how they did that. They could have chosen to make that path easier for MILCs, e.g. a slightly longer flange focal distance for the RF mount would have enabled an RF-M adapter and use of RF lenses on M bodies. Canon, with the data from DSLRs in hand, chose to separate the M and R lines completely. Sure, they could reverse that decision by effectively converting the M line to an APS-C R line. I don't think that makes any sense, but we'll see.


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2022)

yeahright said:


> I bet telephoto focal lengths with a smaller image circle could be sold much cheaper, so that would definitely make sense.


You bet wrong! The front element would have the same size (Focal Length divided by f-number) so the difference would be negligible.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Why not EF-M or Fuji X?


To be honest:
Fuji is the only brand who takes APS-C seriously. If R7 doesn't come and X-H2 arrives I will probably go for Fuji.
I hope this won't happen because transition costs and I will miss some lenses badly.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> To be honest:
> Fuji is the only brand who takes APS-C seriously. If R7 doesn't come and X-H2 arrives I will probably go for Fuji.
> I hope this won't happen because transition costs and I will miss some lenses badly.


I think you should go for the Fuji and soon! Share your pics please! (Fujirumors.com)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Apr 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> This is purely conjecture based upon rumour, historical behaviour and interpretation of facts, as is the entirety of this thread, including mine and your comments.


We are on a rumors site.
That is what we came here for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

tron said:


> You bet wrong! The front element would have the same size (Focal Length divided by f-number) so the difference would be negligible.


Exactly. For telephoto lens designs, the diameter of the image circle is not a limiting factor.


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> But the reality consists of more facts like ...


To Canon, M is "the system that dare not speak its name".  They don't even acknowledge it's existence in their financial documents.
​


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> To Canon, M is "the system that dare not speak its name".  They don't even acknowledge it's existence in their financial documents.
> ​


Strong commitment to a very "lively" system!


----------



## tbgtomcom (Apr 29, 2022)

Makes perfect sense to me. Leading the way to an eventual RF-style Rebel for novices. I'm all for this happening.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I think you should go for the Fuji and soon! Share your pics please! (Fujirumors.com)


And I think you should go for the M system! Please don't share your pics! (Nobodycares.com)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> To Canon, M is "the system that dare not speak its name".  They don't even acknowledge it's existence in their financial documents.


They don't mention DSLRs in their financial documents, either. But in 2021, nearly half of the 2.74 million ILCs that Canon shipped were DSLRs. Both the DSLR and the APS-C MILC segments are mature markets. FF MILCs are a strong growth area for them, which is why their financial discussion in the Imaging segment focuses on that.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> They don't mention DSLRs in their financial documents, either. But in 2021, nearly half of the 2.74 million ILCs that Canon shipped were DSLRs. Both the DSLR and the APS-C MILC segments are mature markets. FF MILCs are a strong growth area for them, which is why their financial reporting focuses on that.


Strong commitment to very "lively" DSLRs, too! Remember my question what M6 II and 90D had in common (not only the sensor)?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> And I think you should go for the M system! Please don't share your pics! (Nobodycares.com)


You are a riot. I have the M system. Two bodies in fact. Would you like to point out my M relevant messages in this thread concerning the M system? Keep it on topic when using sardonic remarks or be dismissed.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> You are a riot. I have the M system. Two bodies in fact. Would you like to point out my M relevant messages in this thread concerning the M system? Keep it on topic when using sardonic remarks or be dismissed.


Wer Wind sät, wird Sturm ernten! 

Fürs Protokoll: Ich war sehr nah am topic


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Strong commitment to very "lively" DSLRs, too! Remember my question what M6 II and 90D had in common (not only the sensor)?


Yes, they are both part of segments that sell very well for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Keep it on topic when using sardonic remarks or be dismissed.


@lote82's posts since joining a few months ago have been mainly toss-away one-liners. He/she/they have relegated him/her/them-self to irrelevancy, with a modicum of amusement value.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 29, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I didn’t say it’s “about to be killed”. But I do feel that even as a mature product it will simply be kept on life support by canon, until it’s eventually phased out, similar to Sony did with the A mount.
> 
> What I did say however is I am an M user. I’m quite happy with it too.
> 
> I’m quite aware it’s a top-selling camera system in Japan, but what about outside of Japan? And I just wonder where the future lies for the M system if RF-S comes to pass.



I don't have any idea how well it's doing in the United States. I don't see many M cameras in the wild. But then, if I were to judge by what I see around me locally, Nikon has 80% market share.

My general pick-it-up-and-dash-out-the-door camera is an M6-II, generally with the Tamron 18-200 native EF-M lens. When I'm doing something more elaborate and less casual the R5 comes into play.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> To be honest:
> Fuji is the only brand who takes APS-C seriously. If R7 doesn't come and X-H2 arrives I will probably go for Fuji.
> I hope this won't happen because transition costs and I will miss some lenses badly.


I have also had my eyes on Fujifilm, however their AF is just not (yet?) anywhere near the performance I want.
Lately OM has caught my attention with the OM-1, and I wonder if I would feel the smaller MFT sensor would be good enough for me? For most photography I do definitely care more about optical quality than sensor size, so maybe?...
Maybe OM-1 is not yet completely where I ideally want it to be, but OM definitely seems to be going in the right direction (for me) with that body.

But if Canon gives us that R7, I can stop wondering about that for the next 4-6(?) years. As for lenses my existing EF-S will do fine for the time too, if Canon doesn't launch anything more attractive than what I already got.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> My general pick-it-up-and-dash-out-the-door camera is an M6-II, generally with the Tamron 18-200 native EF-M lens. When I'm doing something more elaborate and less casual the R5 comes into play.


My grab-and-go camera is the R3, with the RF 24-105/4L for general use or the RF 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. For something more elaborate and less casual, I usually take the R3 with more esoteric lenses. I use the M6 when I am traveling light, either on an overnight trip with only carryon luggage, or a family vacation somewhere we've been before with less interesting photo ops.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My grab-and-go camera is the R3, with the RF 24-105/4L for general use or the RF 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. For something more elaborate and less casual, I usually take the R3 with more esoteric lenses. I use the M6 when I am traveling light, either on an overnight trip with only carryon luggage, or a family vacation somewhere we've been before with less interesting photo ops.



Dash-out-the-door for me usually entails compactness. Over in R land, of course I have the same 24-105 (I bought it refurb with an RP, it's as if I got the RP for 250 bucks), and the 15-35 f/2.8; I also have the EF100-400; it basically lives in my RF bag even though I _have_ used it with my M6-II (yes it looked funny but I wasn't photographing the camera). Those latter two are far from compact, whereas my entire EF-M gear set lives in a small bag.

I suppose I could switch to the R5 with 24-105 f/4 L for quick use, but it comes with a much larger bag and those other two lenses.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 29, 2022)

More on topic, but really not all that much, I've noticed that Tamron EF-S lenses do _not_ trigger the automatic cropping on R series cameras. (Unless Canon has "fixed" that in one of their firmware updates.) Though of course, you can enable it by hand.

I could imagine someone (with more ability than me) making "tunnel vision" photographs for an artistic effect with such a combo.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> @lote82's posts since joining a few months ago have been mainly toss-away one-liners. He/she/they have relegated him/her/them-self to irrelevancy, with a modicum of amusement value.


I rather toss funny one-liners than bore people to death by talking the same false theories over and over again. You overestimate your relevance on a rumors(!) site!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Dash-out-the-door for me usually entails compactness. Over in R land, of course I have the same 24-105 (I bought it refurb with an RP, it's as if I got the RP for 250 bucks), and the 15-35 f/2.8; I also have the EF100-400; it basically lives in my RF bag even though I _have_ used it with my M6-II (yes it looked funny but I wasn't photographing the camera). Those latter two are far from compact, whereas my entire EF-M gear set lives in a small bag.


My iPhone is always in my pocket, and that's the ultimate in compactness and convenience for casual shooting. I only grab a 'real camera' if I think I'll have something worth the effort, and if it's worth the effort it's worth bringing the best IQ I can bring. Just IMO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I rather toss funny one-liners than bore people to death by talking the same false theories over and over again. You overestimate your relevance on a rumors(!) site!


You overestimate your amusement value. 

On a more serious note, it's sad that you are labeling facts as false theories. In this country many people with that attitude often wear red hats, and espouse lies like vaccines that contain nanotrackers and foreign space lasers that start forest fires.


----------



## reefroamer (Apr 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Didn't they just do that with the RF800/1200mm primes


You got my point!


----------



## Dragon (Apr 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> More on topic, but really not all that much, I've noticed that Tamron EF-S lenses do _not_ trigger the automatic cropping on R series cameras. (Unless Canon has "fixed" that in one of their firmware updates.) Though of course, you can enable it by hand.
> 
> I could imagine someone (with more ability than me) making "tunnel vision" photographs for an artistic effect with such a combo.


AFAIK Tamron doesn't really have an "EF-s" lenses. All the Tamron crop lenses I have are EF mount and will fit without interference on any EF camera. The are just EF lenses with an APS-c image circle. E.g. the Tamron 18-400 works just fine on a 5DSR if you switch it to crop mode.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 29, 2022)

This sounds like more clickbait. If Canon releases and APS-c RF body with crop lenses, then the message is clear that EF-M is dead. However, if that were the plan, the first camera would not be an R7 as described, but rather a Rebel or M50 follow-on.


----------



## entoman (Apr 29, 2022)

Dragon said:


> This sounds like more clickbait. If Canon releases and APS-c RF body with crop lenses, then the message is clear that EF-M is dead. However, if that were the plan, the first camera would not be an R7 as described, but rather a Rebel or M50 follow-on.


Of course it's click bait. It's a rumour site and every time you visit the site, irritatingly large and distracting advertisements are thrust in front of your eyes.

I don't believe that Canon will release crop RF lenses, other than a couple of kit options, but even in the extremely unlikely event that they did release a dozen top quality crop RF lenses, that would take at least 3 years to roll out.

I don't think we'll see any more M lenses, and it's quite possible (and a little sad) that there won't be any more M bodies. But Canon will keep manufacturing them as long as there is demand, and I think that demand will continue for another 2-3 years at least.

I almost get the impression that some people here would actually get some warped pleasure from seeing M killed off.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Of course it's click bait. It's a rumour site and every time you visit the site, irritatingly large and distracting advertisements are thrust in front of your eyes.
> 
> I don't believe that Canon will release crop RF lenses, other than a couple of kit options, but even in the extremely unlikely event that they did release a dozen top quality crop RF lenses, that would take at least 3 years to roll out.
> 
> ...


With CR Rumors Guy at the top of the list. He has made it clear that he hates M.


----------



## becceric (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> @lote82's posts since joining a few months ago have been mainly toss-away one-liners. He/she/they have relegated him/her/them-self to irrelevancy, with a modicum of amusement value.


Most of the time the same statement applies to my posts. Hopefully I’ll be able to photograph again, then post actual images shortly.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Of course it's click bait. It's a rumour site and every time you visit the site, irritatingly large and distracting advertisements are thrust in front of your eyes.



Yes and it keeps getting worse, because they have to keep piling more and more ads on in order to offset the impact of letting some users pay a bribe not to see ads. The crazy thing now is they have ads overlaid on other ads, thus obscuring one advertiser's message with another advertiser. 



entoman said:


> I don't believe that Canon will release crop RF lenses, other than a couple of kit options, but even in the extremely unlikely event that they did release a dozen top quality crop RF lenses, that would take at least 3 years to roll out.



Agreed. Although I'm not sure what constitutes a "kit" option. If they release an R7 there would be little point in offering a crappy 18-55 kit lens. But it would make sense to offer a 15-85 and a 10-22 and call it good.



entoman said:


> I don't think we'll see any more M lenses, and it's quite possible (and a little sad) that there won't be any more M bodies. But Canon will keep manufacturing them as long as there is demand, and I think that demand will continue for another 2-3 years at least.



Yes, and this raises the contentious question of when exactly a line should be declared dead. When it ceases to be sold or when the manufacturer ceases to invest any new dollars in the line. The first has a definitive end-date, but the second can go on for years. One could credibly argue that Canon's film SLR line was dead long before it quit selling the last model. 



entoman said:


> I almost get the impression that some people here would actually get some warped pleasure from seeing M killed off.



Yes, just as at least one prolific contributor gets some warped pleasure from insisting that Canon will not offer an R7. I fail to understand either motivation. As near as I can tell, it's the desire to "win" an imagined competition on an obscure and insignificant internet forum.


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> I almost get the impression that some people here would actually get some warped pleasure from seeing M killed off.


I hate seeing the M subjected to a lingering death, which seems to be where it is headed. I wish Canon would "shock" people by releasing a new model this year. A new improved vlogging M would be appropriate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I hate seeing the M subjected to a lingering death, which seems to be where it is headed. I wish Canon would "shock" people by releasing a new model this year. A new improved vlogging M would be appropriate.


It would not surprise me to see a new M model and/or a new xxxD-level DSLR announced soon. That's not the sort of thing to get a rumors forum excited, but given the size of those market segments I can see further investment from Canon, albeit limited. In 2018/2019, their R&D resources were entirely focused on the R line, which makes perfect sense. Then COVID hit, and those resources became more limited and timelines slipped substantially.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

@neuroanatomist

I am reading canonrumors for a quite a long time. Since the last 4 or 5 years I was looking nearly every day on this site for hints on a follow up for the 7D. 
I didn't (and still don't) care if it would be EF, M or RF as long as it would be highend APS-C and suitable for Wildlife. Over the years it became quite clear that as a DSLR it won't come and as a M it won't fit. I was close before buying M6 II or 90D but esp. AF did hold me back.

You obviously have the money to buy expensive cameras like R3 while also buying other cameras which fit your needs. Good for you. I don't think you really miss a camera in Canons lineup. I guess you have (or at least can find) everything you want. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that being right while stating that "foolish" people (like me) are wrong is the only reason you are on this platform.

I don't care if I'm right or wrong with my statements and opinions. I only care about getting the camera which fits (as close as possible) my needs.

4-5 years of reading destructive and arrogant comments like yours about rumored cameras people like me are desperatly hoping for, while bragging you already have every camera you want and need, made me joining this site. I was never interested in writing here, because I knew how it will end. 

I don't have a problem with you. Why should I? I don't even know you. 

The only problem I have is that you are trying to tell me (and others) that there is no reason to build a camera which fits my (and others) needs the best, despite many sources claiming the opposite!

Proposal:
Let's make armistice, at least for a while.
If you are right while stating that there won't be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) you can call me fool or make as much jokes as you want of me.
If I am right while stating that there will be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) I can call you fool or make as much jokes as I want of you.

Deal?


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I hate seeing the M subjected to a lingering death, which seems to be where it is headed. I wish Canon would "shock" people by releasing a new model this year. A new improved vlogging M would be appropriate.


Wasn't the last rumour (quite long ago) of M about vlogging? Could fit quite nicely to small/light and give it new life.

As long as people are claiming that there is no need for something like R7 I will show very much pleasure from seeing M killed off!
Sorry for being an ass ... but the truth is:
M doesn't fit my needs, so I don't care about it ... that's all!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> The only problem I have is that you are trying to tell me (and others) that there is no reason to build a camera which fits my (and others) needs the best, despite many sources claiming the opposite!


Clearly you need to read my statements more carefully. Obviously people have a reason to want whatever it is they want. However, what some people want is not consistent with reality. You may want a 500/2.8 lens that weighs 2 kg and costs $1000. Expressing a desire for something ridiculous like that is going to engender ridicule.

There are good reasons for people to want a high-end APS-C EOS R, and good reasons for people to want a low-end APS-C EOS R. There are also good reasons grounded in logic that Canon may not make one. Certainly there were good reasons to want a 7DIII, right? You did. So did many members here on CR. But Canon didn't deliver one, did they? So clearly, there were good reasons for Canon not to make one. 

I don't believe there will be a high-end APS-C R body or even a low-end one. Certainly, I could be wrong. Time will tell, and if I am wrong, I'll be happy for those who want one of those options and are able to obtain it. 

The problem you really have is that you're making patently false statements, and it seems you take offense when corrected and instead choose to double down on disseminating misinformation.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, they are both part of segments that sell very well for Canon.


Sold (not sell)!


----------



## entoman (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You may want a 500/2.8 lens that weighs 2 kg and costs $1000.


Yes, I'll take one of those please!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Sold (not sell)!


Thanks, that's a perfect example of how you continue doubling down on false information, and make yourself look ever more foolish and asinine in the process.

I stated that the M6 II and 90D are part of market segments that *sell* very well for Canon, namely APS-C MILCs and DSLRs. Last week in Japan, the three best-selling ILC kits comprised the EOS M2 APS-C MILC (in two colors) and the Kiss X10 (250D/SL3) DSLR.




DSLRs comprise >40% of the ILC market. For example, 44% of ILCs shipped globally in March (the most recent month's CIPA data) were DSLRs. Canon dominates that market segment. Therefore, simple logic shows that Canon DSLRs are sell*ing* very well.

If you have reputable data that show otherwise, feel free to share them. Unless you do, by contradicting easily verifiable, publicly available data you merely make yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## entoman (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Certainly there were good reasons to want a 7DIII, right? You did. So did many members here on CR. But Canon didn't deliver one, did they? So clearly, there were good reasons for Canon not to make one.


I'm sure Canon know that a significant number of 7D/7DMkii owners were desperate for a 7DMkiii, but for reasons best known to themselves decided against it. But I think Canon were wrong on that subject. They certainly aren't infallible. They went through a long spell when they sat on their laurels and became complacent, allowing Sony to take a large slice of the market. Canon have also made some notable miscalculations (swipe bar on R comes to mind). I think you may be slightly blinded by brand loyalty.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I have also had my eyes on Fujifilm, however their AF is just not (yet?) anywhere near the performance I want.
> Lately OM has caught my attention with the OM-1, and I wonder if I would feel the smaller MFT sensor would be good enough for me? For most photography I do definitely care more about optical quality than sensor size, so maybe?...
> Maybe OM-1 is not yet completely where I ideally want it to be, but OM definitely seems to be going in the right direction (for me) with that body.
> 
> But if Canon gives us that R7, I can stop wondering about that for the next 4-6(?) years. As for lenses my existing EF-S will do fine for the time too, if Canon doesn't launch anything more attractive than what I already got.


Yes, Fuji AF also stopped me from buying! But maybe the X-H2 will be on par with Canon.
I would also badly miss my beloved Canon 15-85mm and Sigma 150-600mm. Rumors say the XF150-600mm will be f/5.6-8 ... downer!

A friend of mine has the new OM-1 and he seems to be very happy! But honestly I'm not really impressed by the results.
ISO performance is quite good (regarding to sensor size) and it is lightning fast. But I miss the shallow DOF.
I neither want to increase nor decrease sensor size because of different reasons ... APS-C just fits perfectly!

I'm quite confident there will be an R7. For the start I would also only adapt ef and ef-s lenses ... Maybe the Laowa RF 100mm gets a chance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm sure Canon know that a significant number of 7D/7DMkii owners were desperate for a 7DMkiii, but for reasons best known to themselves decided against it. But I think Canon were wrong on that subject. They certainly aren't infallible. They went through a long spell when they sat on their laurels and became complacent, allowing Sony to take a large slice of the market. Canon have also made some notable miscalculations (swipe bar on R comes to mind). I think you may be slightly blinded by brand loyalty.


Of course companies make mistakes, and listen to customer feedback. The MacBook Pro Touch Bar is another example of a feature that was tried, and removed from subsequent models.

However, that feedback needs to come from a meaningful fraction of the customer base. CR forum membership does not comprise such a fraction.


----------



## Otara (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> One of us is posting data and facts. The other is posting opinions that are directly contradicted by those data and facts. The old expression about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent applies here.


 I guess for me its about getting combative over someone being wrong about a Star Wars fact, vs an assertion about curing cancer with crystals. 

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, that's a perfect example of how you continue doubling down on false information, and make yourself look ever more foolish and asinine in the process.
> 
> I stated that the M6 II and 90D are part of market segments that *sell* very well for Canon, namely APS-C MILCs and DSLRs. Last week in Japan, the three best-selling ILC kits comprised the EOS M2 APS-C MILC (in two colors) and the Kiss X10 (250D/SL3) DSLR.
> 
> ...


I don't care about your screenshots of unknown sources. Maybe M50 is still selling well (in Japan). You don't know the margin of these cameras therefore you don't really know if it's a sellout or really profitable for Canon. Oh wait ... YOU surely know!


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Clearly you need to read my statements more carefully. Obviously people have a reason to want whatever it is they want. However, what some people want is not consistent with reality. You may want a 500/2.8 lens that weighs 2 kg and costs $1000. Expressing a desire for something ridiculous like that is going to engender ridicule.
> 
> There are good reasons for people to want a high-end APS-C EOS R, and good reasons for people to want a low-end APS-C EOS R. There are also good reasons grounded in logic that Canon may not make one. Certainly there were good reasons to want a 7DIII, right? You did. So did many members here on CR. But Canon didn't deliver one, did they? So clearly, there were good reasons for Canon not to make one.
> 
> ...


So ... do we have a deal?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I don't care about your screenshots of unknown sources.


It’s BCN data, as referenced in an earlier reply. And CIPA.

But yes, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t care about facts. This is becoming analogous to a debate between a scientist and a QAnon adherent, and equally pointless. Have fun living in your personal alternate reality. I’m out.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s BCN data, as referenced in an earlier reply. And CIPA.
> 
> But yes, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t care about facts. This is becoming analogous to a debate between a scientist and a QAnon adherent, and equally pointless. Have fun living in your personal alternate reality. I’m out.


With all these "facts" you can't be wrong predicting the future ... so, again ... do we have a deal?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, I'll take one of those please!


 Physics be damned!


----------



## Dragon (Apr 29, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Wasn't the last rumour (quite long ago) of M about vlogging? Could fit quite nicely to small/light and give it new life.
> 
> As long as people are claiming that there is no need for something like R7 I will show very much pleasure from seeing M killed off!
> Sorry for being an ass ... but the truth is:
> M doesn't fit my needs, so I don't care about it ... that's all!


You are comical. First you slam Neuroanatomist for being arrogant and then promptly make a statement like this. Yes, you do look remarkably like an ass .


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> You are comical. First you slam Neuroanatomist for being arrogant and then promptly make a statement like this. Yes, you do look remarkably like an ass .


Yes, I am. Never said I am not!
Just read exactly what I wrote. You didn't get the message...
I don't "hate" M or any other system, I just don't care about it (because it doesn't fit my needs). I don't say there will never be an M camera again. When I said it's dead I BELIEVE there will never be an M camera (at least as we know it) again. MAYBE the new purpose COULD be for vlogging (which I don't care)...

The difference between an arrogant ass like me and an arrogant soziopath like Neuroanatomist:
I don't go to M threads bullying people by saying this won't ever happen!

Let's go back to Topic (which is not M):
I made a fair proposal some posts ago...
Everyone is invited to make agreement with me.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 30, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> it would be important to Canon that this new line provide and encourage an upgrade path to the R mount. This is what the M mount lacks.


This is predicated on there being enough current M users who'd like to transition to RF but who aren't doing so because of the lack of backwards compatibility to offset to costs of adding a new line. It's been a common assumption on this forum that such a group is important, but I've never seen any compelling evidence. I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

SteveC said:


> …my entire EF-M gear set lives in a small bag.


The M kit is very convenient. At home, I keep my gear in Pelican/Storm cases, and the full kit (M6, all 8 EF-M lenses and a 270EX II flash) fit in a Storm im2200 case.




It’s small enough that on some family trips, I take the M6 and a few lenses (M11-22, M18-150, and M22/2) in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20 along with a FF kit. I use the M during the day, and the FF kit for solo outings at blue hour or later.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you have reputable data that show otherwise, feel free to share them. Unless you do, by contradicting easily verifiable, publicly available data you merely make yourself look like an idiot.


Selling M50 kits to beginners (in Japan) who will probably never buy anything else for the M system, isn't a proof for the healthyness of the M system!
It's also not a proof that Canon is making good profit (globaly) with the whole system (which is not only M50 kits in Japan)!
It's also not a proof that Canon won't bring APS-C cameras and lenses to the RF system.

It only indicates that Japanese like M50 kits ... nothing else!

Zero (current) rumors about M indicate that the system is dying.
No new cameras (sorry, the M50 II is NOT a new camera hardwarewise) and lenses since ... years (I don't know, because I don't care) ... indicate that the system is dying.
Canon didn't mentioning M in their financial documents indicate that they aren't interested in the system anymore.

You hijacked the thread again ... let's go back to RF!

If you are right while stating that there won't be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) you can call me fool or make as much jokes as you want of me.
If I am right while stating that there will be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) I can call you fool or make as much jokes as I want of you.

Deal?

If I am an idiot then you are a cowardly idiot because you don't accept the bet!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

scyrene said:


> This is predicated on there being enough current M users who'd like to transition to RF but who aren't doing so because of the lack of backwards compatibility to offset to costs of adding a new line. It's been a common assumption on this forum that such a group is important, but I've never seen any compelling evidence. I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.


Exactly. Canon _has_ the data on users’ upgrade path from APS-C to FF, and they chose to make RF lenses incompatible with M bodies. To me, that’s evidence that the ‘upgrade path’ is not necessary (probably because as you suggest, APS-C users who buy a FF body mostly start buying FF lenses at that point, and buy no more crop bodies or lenses after going FF).

However, consider that >40% of the ILC market is DSLRs, and most of those being sold at this point are entry-level. It’s possible Canon wants to entice those people that the next camera they buy should be mirrorless, and an APS-C R may be the way. But it would have to be cheap…


----------



## hachu21 (Apr 30, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> If Canon was going to make one _and only one_ APS-C RF lens, I would vote for a wideangle zoom. I imagine with the shorter flange distance on RF mount, it would be possible to make something a bit wider than EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18, without sacrificing optical performance and without increasing size/weight compared to EF-S 10-22 w/adapter. A 9-20mm or maybe even an 8(.5)-18mm?


Like... Ef-m 11-22? Or a bit wider.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> that would be the most boring kit-lens ever made, and I don't imagine it would have much appeal to R7 users.


It would make sense for a low-cost R7 in that it would probably be very cheap, making for a very cheap kit. 



Stig Nygaard said:


> If Canon was going to make one _and only one_ APS-C RF lens, I would vote for a wideangle zoom. I imagine with the shorter flange distance on RF mount, it would be possible to make something a bit wider than EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18, without sacrificing optical performance and without increasing size/weight compared to EF-S 10-22 w/adapter. A 9-20mm or maybe even an 8(.5)-18mm?


Especially with the larger throat diameter (compared to EF-M), yes.

But the market for it would need to be there. Recall that Canon started with the EF-S 10-22mm, then ‘upgraded’ it to the EF-S 10-18, with a plastic mount and narrower aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

hachu21 said:


> Like... Ef-m 11-22? Or a bit wider.


Yes, but it would be substantially larger.


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 30, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.


Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.


So... 
Is it rather bad or good having an up- and downgrade path in one mount (like Sony and Nikon!)?


----------



## John Wilde (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> So...
> Is it rather bad or good having an up- and downgrade path in one mount (like Sony and Nikon!)?


I'm too lazy to look up Sony, but it's a bad thing that Nikon doesn't have a Z in the same price range as the M50. With kit lens, the Nikon Z 50 is $300 more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.


The difference here is that RF lenses aren’t backward compatible, whereas EF lenses worked on APS-C DSLRs.

I wonder how many upgraders (APS-C to FF) there actually are today. A decade ago, there was a massive IQ gulf between cell phone cameras and even an APS-C DSLR. Now we have smartphones that are like ILCs (e.g., three cameras with different prime lenses in one device), that deliver very good images.

I suspect that today there are far more first time ILC buyers getting FF bodies than a few years ago. Especially with bodies like the RP that aren’t far off a high-end smartphone. A sub-$800 full frame R body with a kit lens would come in cheaper than a top-line iPhone.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I'm too lazy to look up Sony, but it's a bad thing that Nikon doesn't have a Z in the same price range as the M50. With kit lens, the Nikon Z 50 is $300 more.


That wasn't my question, but anyway... 
For me it's better to have up- and downgrade path in one mount, for you it's not, that's fair! 
Isn't $300 more for Z50 fair because it's better speced than the M50? (No intentions, just curious!)


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The difference here is that RF lenses aren’t backward compatible, whereas EF lenses worked on APS-C DSLRs.


Why are RF lenses not backward compatible? 

If APS-C RF cameras are coming you surely will use RF and RF-S on FF and APS-C RF cameras as well. I know there are only a few lenses that would make sense using on both sensor sizes, but for ex. the RF 16mm would be one of them!


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> This sounds like more clickbait. If Canon releases and APS-c RF body with crop lenses, then the message is clear that EF-M is dead. However, if that were the plan, the first camera would not be an R7 as described, but rather a Rebel or M50 follow-on.


I don't think so!
1. There are already plenty of (more or less actual) Rebel and M50 options but zero (actual) high-end APS-C options in Canon Universe.
2. There are zero RF-S lenses and most of the RF lenses are too pricey for Rebel and M50 users.


----------



## entoman (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> most of the RF lenses are too pricey for Rebel and M50 users.


Yes, Rebel users are usually quite price conscious, but I think you'll find that a lot of M users, possibly the majority, buy the cameras and lenses because of their compactness, good performance, styling and ergonomics, rather than the price.

RF lenses won't fit on Rebel or M cameras. There are plenty of affordable lenses in M mount, and a vast number of affordable EF lenses for Rebels, including quite a few compact models for APS-C.

No one knows whether the "R7" will be a Rebel replacement, a 90D replacement or a 7DMkii replacement, it's all idle speculation at the moment. Rumoured specs are notoriously unreliable, so it's pointless anyone getting their hopes up at this stage. We can all dream, Some of us will be thrilled. Some of us will be disappointed.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 30, 2022)

My first thought would be "why"? Then again, re-designing the M series lenses for the R mount, lenses like the 15-45, would be very inexpensive and would provide low-cost base lenses for an APS-C R body. And I wouldn't fault them for that.

There are a couple of real gems in the M series that might transfer over to the R mount - the 22 f/2 pancake, and the 32/1.4 for example. Both are well-respected optics, and not terribly expensive. While I kind of like the existence of the M series, for its compact size, there is value in having a universal mount APS-C body. These lenses would obviously be optically incompatible with a full frame sensor, unless some sort of cropping scheme were used.

Time will tell...


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yes, just as at least one prolific contributor gets some warped pleasure from insisting that Canon will not offer an R7. I fail to understand either motivation. As near as I can tell, it's the desire to "win" an imagined competition on an obscure and insignificant internet forum.



I think you are not interpreting the commentary correctly. Those of us who question the likelihood of an R7 are simply looking at the data. There has been no actual mention of an APS-c R body of any kind from Canon other than super 35 Cine cams and ALL the specifications that have been floated have originated with CR Guy (likely directly from his imagination). There is no doubt that there is a group of folks looking for another bargain like the 7D2, but current camera economics suggest that to be unlikely. Clearly, the wish is for an APS-c camera with a feature set similar to an R5 with a little R3 tossed in for good measure. In realistic terms, that is a $3500 camera and at that price, it simply would not sell enough copies for it to make sense. There is also the issue that ANY release of an APS-c R model would signal the death of M, and Canon are not going to do that unless and until they decide to kill M and have a viable alternative plan ready to roll out. The bottom line is that from a business perspective, such a camera is a much bigger decision than simply making another model to satisfy a relatively small group of potential customers. An R5s solves the technical requirement of more pixels on the bird and given an APS-c Raw mode, it also solves the file size issue. All that remains is the price point and $5k vs the realistic $3.5k for the R7 is not that big a difference for folks who are mostly shooting with a Big White of some flavor. 

For reference, I have a 90D and 3 M cameras including an M6 II. I like the M cameras for their portability and the M5 is my favorite. For Birds, the R5 outperforms all of the former and is still quite capable with an 800 f/11 with a 1.4 extender. I think this suggests that an R7 with anything less than R5 performance for AF and IS would be a letdown and result in 90D like sales, but a very fast 32 MP APS-c sensor equipped with IBIS and r5 style AF processing is not going to be that much cheaper than an R5 as noted above. 

That is the math of the situation and I think that is all any of the "naysayers" are trying to point out. If Canon intend to keep M and actually decide to make an R7, then they would need to release either a new M model or at least an M lens at the same time, since Canon will never come out and say "we are commited to keeping such and such". A simultaneous release would serve the same purpose and that is the "Canon way". If they are not planning to keep M, than they need a clear alternative path for the current Rebel users. That could be an APS-c R line or simply a very low cost FF R body, but given the obsolete sensor, the RP is not that alternative. I don't think anyone is saying the R7 is a "bad" idea, but rather that it is a challenging business decision. Personally, I would rather see an R5s, but either one would be something I might well buy.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

Tom W said:


> My first thought would be "why"? Then again, re-designing the M series lenses for the R mount, lenses like the 15-45, would be very inexpensive and would provide low-cost base lenses for an APS-C R body. And I wouldn't fault them for that.
> 
> There are a couple of real gems in the M series that might transfer over to the R mount - the 22 f/2 pancake, and the 32/1.4 for example. Both are well-respected optics, and not terribly expensive. While I kind of like the existence of the M series, for its compact size, there is value in having a universal mount APS-C body. These lenses would obviously be optically incompatible with a full frame sensor, unless some sort of cropping scheme were used.
> 
> Time will tell...


All the R bodies automatically switch to APS-c mode when you attach an EF-s lens.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Apr 30, 2022)

There still needs to be a replacement line for the Rebel series. The M didn't do it, neither did the Rp. Canon needs a mirrorless entry level product that can sell as a "system" in the $450-750 price range. A two lens package, say an 18-55 and a 55-250 in the sub $900 range might hold on to the Rebel market. I'd like Canon to emulate Nikon's approach to full frame and aps-c lenses in that all lenses can be used on any body even in a degraded mode.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think you are not interpreting the commentary correctly. Those of us who question the likelihood of an R7 are simply looking at the data. There has been no actual mention of an APS-c R body of any kind from Canon other than super 35 Cine cams and ALL the specifications that have been floated have originated with CR Guy (likely directly from his imagination).


Which data EXACTLY predicts there won't come RF APS-C cameras? 
Fingers crossed you don't mean "M50 kits sales in Japan"! 

Are "likely directly from his imagination" seriously data?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Which data EXACTLY predicts there won't come RF APS-C cameras?
> Fingers crossed you don't mean "M50 kits sales in Japan"!
> 
> Are "likely directly from his imagination" seriously data?


If you don't understand the word "business", then you won't understand what I said. Try reading it again.


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

dickgrafixstop said:


> There still needs to be a replacement line for the Rebel series. The M didn't do it, neither did the Rp. Canon needs a mirrorless entry level product that can sell as a "system" in the $450-750 price range. A two lens package, say an 18-55 and a 55-250 in the sub $900 range might hold on to the Rebel market. I'd like Canon to emulate Nikon's approach to full frame and aps-c lenses in that all lenses can be used on any body even in a degraded mode.


With gas at $5 at gallon and iPhones north of $1000, I suspect the $450-750 price range may well have become the $900-1500 price range .


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> If you don't understand the word "business", then you won't understand what I said. Try reading it again.


Ah... I see... Being personal because you don't have arguments... "business" as usual! 

So... Canon is seriously giving you business data? Nice!


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Ah... I see... Being personal because you don't have arguments... "business" as usual!
> 
> So... Canon is seriously giving you business data? Nice!


"Data" is not always in the form of a spreadsheet and understanding a business does not always require a secret path to the CEO. If you have run a business for a few decades, you can put the pieces together. If you again reread what I said, you will note that I didn't say there won't be an R7, I simply pointed out the business challenges to releasing such a camera as described in the rumor. If you can't come up with a substantive business argument to contradict what I said, then this is the end of this discussion>


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> If they are not planning to keep M, than they need a clear alternative path for the current Rebel users. That could be an APS-c R line or simply a very low cost FF R body, but given the obsolete sensor, the RP is not that alternative. I don't think anyone is saying the R7 is a "bad" idea, but rather that it is a challenging business decision. Personally, I would rather see an R5s, but either one would be something I might well buy.


Maybe I was a bit too much sarcastic... You have indeed some good arguments (even if they don't clearly speak against RF APS-C)!

What's your prediction for APS-C in Canon Universe? Completely dead? M revival?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Maybe I was a bit too sarcastic... You have indeed some good arguments (even if they don't clearly speak against RF APS-C)!
> 
> What's your prediction for APS-C in Canon Universe? Completely dead? M revival?


I am not offering a prediction. The world economy is very complex and dynamic at the present time. I suspect the decision makers at Canon are focused on trying to figure out what to do with APS-c. In the meantime, Canon has plenty of work of the table with the FF R-line, so my sense is that all else will be quiet for a while. I would like to see some action in the M series, but that is a personal desire, not a prediction. So long as the industry is supply constrained, there is little benefit to making new product lines. When the supply exceeds the demand, then there is reason to make new stuff to attract more customers. Once again, just business realities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2022)

dickgrafixstop said:


> There still needs to be a replacement line for the Rebel series. The M didn't do it, neither did the Rp. Canon needs a mirrorless entry level product that can sell as a "system" in the $450-750 price range.


Why?

Of all the ILCs shipped by the major manufacturers in the first quarter of this year, ~25% of them were Canon DSLRs. Same for all of 2021. Yet, some people on this forum seem to think Canon needs to replace them with mirrorless cameras. This is what @Dragon meant about not understanding the word ‘business’. The business acumen of some people on this forum is sorely lacking.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> So long as the industry is supply constrained, there is little benefit to making new product lines. When the supply exceeds the demand, then there is reason to make new stuff to attract more customers. Once again, just business realities.


Two serious questions 
(thank you for answering!):

1. Would be APS-C RF cameras a "new product line" in your eyes? 

2. In a shrinking market with actual supply constraints, wouldn't it be economicaly wise to cut M (and EF) off and concentrate on RF (with FF and APS-C)?


----------



## Dragon (Apr 30, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Two serious questions
> (thank you for answering!):
> 
> 1. Would be APS-C RF cameras a "new product line" in your eyes?
> ...


1. APS-c RF would be a new product line if supported by lenses and likely viewed as unserious if not supported by lenses (and then there is the M conflict).
2. The supply constraints are different for different levels of tech. The sensors and the processors in the Rebel and M lines are likely much less constrained than the cutting-edge sensors and processors in devices like the R5 and R3. We can't accurately know what constraints Canon has, but leading edge semiconductors are generally in short supply and we know that the R3 sensor is very new tech for Canon, and thus likely supply constrained. The CR rumor is for a body using R3 sensor tech and at least R5 AF processing tech all bundled into a sub-$2k camera. It is logical that would be seriously supply constrained and would compete for resources with the much more profitable R3 and R5 (hence, not an attractive business proposition). So long as the M and Rebel lines are selling well (and they are), there is no business reason to drop them if they are not resource competitive with current R series cameras. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## lote82 (Apr 30, 2022)

Dragon said:


> 1. APS-c RF would be a new product line if supported by lenses and likely viewed as unserious if not supported by lenses (and then there is the M conflict).
> 2. The supply constraints are different for different levels of tech. The sensors and the processors in the Rebel and M lines are likely much less constrained than the cutting-edge sensors and processors in devices like the R5 and R3. We can't accurately know what constraints Canon has, but leading edge semiconductors are generally in short supply and we know that the R3 sensor is very new tech for Canon, and thus likely supply constrained. The CR rumor is for a body using R3 sensor tech and at least R5 AF processing tech all bundled into a sub-$2k camera. It is logical that would be seriously supply constrained and would compete for resources with the much more profitable R3 and R5 (hence, not an attractive business proposition). So long as the M and Rebel lines are selling well (and they are), there is no business reason to drop them if they are not resource competitive with current R series cameras. Hope that makes sense.


It does... Thank you!


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think you are not interpreting the commentary correctly. Those of us who question the likelihood of an R7 are simply looking at the data.



Are you? What data are you looking at, because I am not aware that Canon has published their sales and marketing data.



Dragon said:


> There has been no actual mention of an APS-c R body of any kind from Canon other than super 35 Cine cams and ALL the specifications that have been floated have originated with CR Guy (likely directly from his imagination).



Canon never mentions products until they are prepared to announce them. It would be uncharacteristic of Canon to declare that they intend to release any product until they are ready to either announce it formally or make a development announcement. The success of this site, under both CR Guy and the current owners, requires that they publish credible rumors and confirm them through reliable sources. Certainly not everything on this site comes to fruition, but they seem pretty definitive that an R7 is coming. This site's track record is really quite good. What's your track record?



Dragon said:


> There is no doubt that there is a group of folks looking for another bargain like the 7D2, but current camera economics suggest that to be unlikely.



There are wide variations of the price predictions of forum members. Many are full of wishful thinking. But not all. Most seem realistic in anticipating the price. 



Dragon said:


> Clearly, the wish is for an APS-c camera with a feature set similar to an R5 with a little R3 tossed in for good measure. In realistic terms, that is a $3500 camera and at that price, it simply would not sell enough copies for it to make sense.



My read is that many of those hoping for an R7 expect it have a feature set and price in line with the R6, which is a $2,500 camera. (The R5 is actually a $3,900 camera today.) Also, what data do you have that sets an upper limit on what an R7 might sell for. Canon seems to have no problem selling cameras for whatever price they set.



Dragon said:


> There is also the issue that ANY release of an APS-c R model would signal the death of M, and Canon are not going to do that unless and until they decide to kill M and have a viable alternative plan ready to roll out.



Why would the release of an R7 jeopardize the future of the M system? The M is geared toward those who want a small and light system for travel and general purpose use. An R7 is a specialist body for those who want additional "reach" for birding, wildlife and sports. Even if an R7 would jeopardize the M system, why would Canon refuse to produce a more expensive product that displaces a less expensive product?



Dragon said:


> The bottom line is that from a business perspective, such a camera is a much bigger decision than simply making another model to satisfy a relatively small group of potential customers.



I don't think it is. There is a niche market for the camera and Canon appears to believe it is worth the investment to fulfill that niche. Camera bodies are not a zero-sum game. Introducing an R7 doesn't preclude introducing other bodies.



Dragon said:


> An R5s solves the technical requirement of more pixels on the bird and given an APS-c Raw mode, it also solves the file size issue. All that remains is the price point and $5k vs the realistic $3.5k for the R7 is not that big a difference for folks who are mostly shooting with a Big White of some flavor.



That's a lot to unpack. I'd like to see your market and technical data. Where is this R5s that you are touting? I don't see that in Canon's lineup. Are you choosing to believe the rumors of a high megapixel R5s but refusing to believe the rumors of an R7? Sounds like confirmation bias to me. An APS-C sensor is always going to move data more quickly than a full frame sensor of the same pixel density because it has less data to move. Let's compare apples to apples – a C-Raw file on a crop sensor body is always going to be a smaller file size than a C-Raw file on full frame. Where is your market data that says the $5,000 price point will generate as many sales as a $3,500 or more likely $2,500 price point, especially when the R7 target audience will never use all those extra pixels and shoot exclusively in crop mode. Where is your market data that says most of the potential buyers are shooting Big Whites? Many of those commenting on this site view an R7 as an alternative to a Big White, which they find too expensive and too heavy. 



Dragon said:


> For reference, I have a 90D and 3 M cameras including an M6 II. I like the M cameras for their portability and the M5 is my favorite. For Birds, the R5 outperforms all of the former and is still quite capable with an 800 f/11 with a 1.4 extender. I think this suggests that an R7 with anything less than R5 performance for AF and IS would be a letdown and result in 90D like sales, but a very fast 32 MP APS-c sensor equipped with IBIS and r5 style AF processing is not going to be that much cheaper than an R5 as noted above.



The R6 has the same AF and IS as the R5, so why do you keep using the R5 as your price floor? What's wrong with 90D-like sales? Do you have access to market data that shows what those sales were and that Canon was disappointed in those sales? If the 90D was a weak seller (and we don't know if it was), might that not have more to do with the poor timing of introducing a DSLR near the end of the life cycle for all enthusiast DSLRs and to what extent did the weak autofocus on the 90D undermine its sales potential with 7D users, since the much older 7DII had a much superior autofocus? 



Dragon said:


> That is the math of the situation and I think that is all any of the "naysayers" are trying to point out.



And yet, you have no math.



Dragon said:


> If Canon intend to keep M and actually decide to make an R7, then they would need to release either a new M model or at least an M lens at the same time, since Canon will never come out and say "we are committed to keeping such and such". A simultaneous release would serve the same purpose and that is the "Canon way". If they are not planning to keep M, than they need a clear alternative path for the current Rebel users. That could be an APS-c R line or simply a very low cost FF R body, but given the obsolete sensor, the RP is not that alternative.



You seem very sure that you know what Canon needs to do. Personally, I leave that up to Canon.



Dragon said:


> I don't think anyone is saying the R7 is a "bad" idea, but rather that it is a challenging business decision.


 
So you are saying that you know Canon's business so well that you are confident it would be a bad business decision. Again, my choice is to let Canon decide what is or isn't a good business decision.



Dragon said:


> Personally, I would rather see an R5s, but either one would be something I might well buy.



Now my head is really spinning. You are saying, "it's a bad business decision but I might buy one."

Here is my perspective: I am not vested one way or the other in an R7. The R5 and R3 meet my needs. If one materializes I will decide at that point if it is something I want. More likely I can see it as something my wife might want, as she shoots small songbirds frequently and can never get enough pixels on target. Although she does appreciate her R5 coupled with the 800mm F11. But, she might appreciate a 32mp R7 coupled with the 800mm F11 even more. And, that's really the point of the R7 isn't it? It will add more pixels on target no matter what lens you use. 

What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7. If you don't want it. Don't buy it. But making up all sorts of rationales as to why Canon won't do something that it appears increasingly likely that they will do, only runs the risk of making people look like fools when the camera is released.


----------



## Dragon (May 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> That's a lot to unpack. I'd like to see your market and technical data. Where is this R5s that you are touting? I don't see that in Canon's lineup. Are you choosing to believe the rumors of a high megapixel R5s but refusing to believe the rumors of an R7? Sounds like confirmation bias to me. An APS-C sensor is always going to move data more quickly than a full frame sensor of the same pixel density because it has less data to move. Let's compare apples to apples – a C-Raw file on a crop sensor body is always going to be a smaller file size than a C-Raw file on full frame. Where is your market data that says the $5,000 price point will generate as many sales as a $3,500 or more likely $2,500 price point, especially when the R7 target audience will never use all those extra pixels and shoot exclusively in crop mode. Where is your market data that says most of the potential buyers are shooting Big Whites? Many of those commenting on this site view an R7 as an alternative to a Big White, which they find too expensive and too heavy.


Note that a C-RAW file from the R5 in crop mode is about 1/2.5 times the size of a full frame C-RAW file. In other words, it is an APS-c sized file and that is the feature that I was referring to in a hypothetical R5S. As far as I can tell, when the R5 is in crop mode it doesn't even read the full sensor, so no reason to believe that the readout will be significantly slower than a similar crop sensor when in that mode. Evidence to support that is the ability of the R5 to produce downscaled 4k at 60fps in crop mode.


unfocused said:


> Now my head is really spinning. You are saying, "it's a bad business decision but I might buy one."
> 
> Here is my perspective: I am not vested one way or the other in an R7. The R5 and R3 meet my needs. If one materializes, I will decide at that point if it is something I want. More likely I can see it as something my wife might want, as she shoots small songbirds frequently and can never get enough pixels on target. Although she does appreciate her R5 coupled with the 800mm F11. But, she might appreciate a 32mp R7 coupled with the 800mm F11 even more. And, that's really the point of the R7 isn't it? It will add more pixels on target no matter what lens you use.
> 
> What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7. If you don't want it. Don't buy it. But making up all sorts of rationales as to why Canon won't do something that it appears increasingly likely that they will do, only runs the risk of making people look like fools when the camera is released.


Sorry I triggered you. I have no hate on for an R7 (in fact, it might be an interesting camera). I was simply pointing out the likely obstacles to its release from a business perspective. If you look at my last response above to Iote82, there are a few more issues identified (at least for the near term until supply constraints relax a bit). I believe my perspective is pretty consistent with the rest of the folks you see as being "offended" by such a camera.


----------



## Jethro (May 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7. If you don't want it. Don't buy it. But making up all sorts of rationales as to why Canon won't do something that it appears increasingly likely that they will do, only runs the risk of making people look like fools when the camera is released.


I think you may be mistaking healthy scepticism for participants being 'personally offended'. This is a rumour site, so expressing scepticism that a particular rumour will (or will not) actually crystallise, based on a view of the likely / possible business consequences (eg the likely price) of such a crystallisation, doesn't strike me as unreasonable. 

The R7 (as specced in this thread) wouldn't be for me (ie I have no skin in the game), but I'd love to see such a camera because it would add something to the RF system, potentially draw more people into the system, and provide a lot of utility to (at least some) people. 

But rumours of an APS-C RF body have been around as long as ... well ... RF bodies, and I've always been sceptical about the likelihood (partly because I'm sceptical of Canon's desire to invest in yet another mount (RF-s)).


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I think you may be mistaking healthy scepticism for participants being 'personally offended'. This is a rumour site, so expressing scepticism that a particular rumour will (or will not) actually crystallise, based on a view of the likely / possible business consequences (eg the likely price) of such a crystallisation, doesn't strike me as unreasonable.
> 
> The R7 (as specced in this thread) wouldn't be for me (ie I have no skin in the game), but I'd love to see such a camera because it would add something to the RF system, potentially draw more people into the system, and provide a lot of utility to (at least some) people.
> 
> But rumours of an APS-C RF body have been around as long as ... well ... RF bodies, and I've always been sceptical about the likelihood (partly because I'm sceptical of Canon's desire to invest in yet another mount (RF-s)).


Yes, but... 
RF-S wouldn't be a new "mount". It's just a new lens-lineup fully compatible with RF mount.
RF-S on FF = crop mode (sensor not fully lighted) 
RF on APS-C = cropped image


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> So...
> Is it rather bad or good having an up- and downgrade path in one mount (like Sony and Nikon!)?


It is definitely good but it might no be necessary


----------



## koenkooi (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Note that a C-RAW file from the R5 in crop mode is about 1/2.5 times the size of a full frame C-RAW file. In other words, it is an APS-c sized file and that is the feature that I was referring to in a hypothetical R5S. As far as I can tell, when the R5 is in crop mode it doesn't even read the full sensor, so no reason to believe that the readout will be significantly slower than a similar crop sensor when in that mode. [..]


Judging from the rolling shutter, the crop mode only reads the lines for the crop mode and then discards the sides, it's 1.6x faster in readout compared to the full sensor.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The difference here is that RF lenses aren’t backward compatible, whereas EF lenses worked on APS-C DSLRs.


Right but EF lenses can still be used on both systems.
That upgrade path still works.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Why are RF lenses not backward compatible?
> 
> If APS-C RF cameras are coming you surely will use RF and RF-S on FF and APS-C RF cameras as well. I know there are only a few lenses that would make sense using on both sensor sizes, but for ex. the RF 16mm would be one of them!


I believe that was in reference to Rf lenses not being usable on the EF-M mount


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

dickgrafixstop said:


> There still needs to be a replacement line for the Rebel series.


That is true from a consumer standpoint but whether or not that is still profitable enough to produce them in a shrinking market is for Canon to determine.
Nikon has publicly abandoned that market for lack of profitability.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I believe that was in reference to Rf lenses not being usable on the EF-M mount


Yes, after reading a 2nd and 3rd time, I came to the same conclusion!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> 2. In a shrinking market with actual supply constraints, wouldn't it be economicaly wise to cut M (and EF) off and concentrate on RF (with FF and APS-C)?


That is a very good question.
The answer is not so straightforward.
Canon can't just force more expensive cameras on customers but at the same time if they can entice customers to buy pricier models then that would be ideal.
Focusing up market makes a lot of sense but there still needs to be an entry-level of some sort.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Are you? What data are you looking at, because I am not aware that Canon has published their sales and marketing data.


No, they don’t. But reasonable deductions can be made from sales data that are publicly available.



unfocused said:


> What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7.


Who is personally offended by the idea of an R7?

Should I start referring to a ‘handful of forum participants that are desperately salivating after their wet dream of a mirrorless version of the 7DIII’?

I will say, what _does_ offend me are people who ignore facts and data, and make asinine statements that are easily refuted by those facts and data. A prime example being people who claim DSLRs or the EOS M system are ‘dead’ despite ample, readily available data that show their claim to be false and their ongoing false statements to be completely idiotic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Right but EF lenses can still be used on both systems.
> That upgrade path still works.


Yes, but the RF-S lens with an APS-C R body as a gateway to RF lenses with FF R bodies is being used as a justification for why Canon ‘needs’ to launch APS-C R bodies and lenses.

My point is that with DSLRs, Canon had partial interoperability (EF lenses on FF and APS-C bodies), and when designing their mirrorless systems they chose to completely drop interoperability.

Yet certain forum members believe that interoperability that Canon chose to drop is a driver for Canon to launch an APS-C R line with dedicated lenses.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That is a very good question.
> The answer is not so straightforward.
> Canon can't just force more expensive cameras on customers but at the same time if they can entice customers to buy pricier models then that would be ideal.
> Focusing up market makes a lot of sense but there still needs to be an entry-level of some sort.


I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!

M is dead end because it's not having upgrade path (and long tele lenses). It's build only around small/light/cheap, which isn't enough in the long run. If I (and I think not only me) want small/light/cheap I'll take my smartphone. Having more reach to clearly separate from smartphone market needs long teles. I think everyone knows long teles will never come to a small/light/cheap mount...

If APS-C will have a place in future Canon lineup it has to offer more than only small/light/cheap and also upgrade path to FF. RF could offer this....

The only other option for Canon I can see is FF all the way down to very low end and no APS-C anymore!

Sorry, but Canon screwed M mount by not giving upgrade path!


----------



## dilbert (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!



Maybe the R7 will be rhe 7D/II but with the price corrected to leave room for a R70, R700, and not to forget R7000.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2022)

dilbert said:


> Maybe the R7 will be rhe 7D/II but with the price corrected to leave room for a R70, R700, and not to forget R7000.


You forgot the R77.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You forgot the R77.


Obviously a unfunny joke... 
At least R77 is more likely than M7!


----------



## reefroamer (May 1, 2022)

I seriously doubt there will ever be an APS-C mirrorless Rebel, much as some people here might want one. Times have changed since the first Rebel was introduced in 2003 for $899 body, $999 kit, with a 6mp sensor. The Rebel line was wildly popular, but in 2007 the first iPhone launched. And the photography market changed. Today, more than 2 billion iPhones — all with cameras — have been sold, plus all the Android smartphones. For people who want a better camera to explore more serious photography there’s the now-$899 Canon EOS RP. It’s a little long in the tooth, but still a great entry point with an easy upgrade path in the modern Canon mirrorless full-frame system. So what does Canon (and the entry level camera customer) really have to gain from cheaper mirrorless Rebel with a cropped sensor? I just seriously doubt there’s much more gold to mine in that market with any ILC. 

An upmarket R7 in the $2,000-$2,500 range might make more sense, if Canon sees enough potential buyers to justify the expense of bringing it to market. I’m skeptical Canon can even make that case, though personally I’d love to see a competent R7 described by this rumor. 

I live on a tourist destination island where 10 years ago it was common to see visitors lugging around Rebel-type cameras. Today, not so much. nearly everyone is snapping away with their very adequate smartphone cameras. Sure, I rarely see anyone with a serious camera-lens combo, but when I do it’s not an inexpensive Rebel-type. I just think that time has gone. We’ll see what Canon thinks. I could be wrong.


----------



## reefroamer (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!
> 
> M is dead end because it's not having upgrade path (and long tele lenses). It's build only around small/light/cheap, which isn't enough in the long run. If I (and I think not only me) want small/light/cheap I'll take my smartphone. Having more reach to clearly separate from smartphone market needs long teles. I think everyone knows long teles will never come to a small/light/cheap mount...
> 
> ...


I would guess that most people who buy an M camera have no need of an upgrade path. And the lack of one is not likely a serious impediment to moving upstream in the Canon R system. These are mostly inexpensive cameras that can be kept for use where size and weight are more important considerations, even as we’ve joined the R system. From what I read on this forum, many of us M users have them exactly for this reason. It is what it is, and I accept that. If it dies, I really won’t care. I’ll just keep using my M50 and the several lenses I have until they no longer work. That should be a long time. All my EF/EF-S lenses and bodies are gone to make way for mr R6 and RF lenses. But Im keeping my M50.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> I seriously doubt there will ever be an APS-C mirrorless Rebel, much as some people here might want one. Times have changed since the first Rebel was introduced in 2003 for $899 body, $999 kit, with a 6mp sensor. The Rebel line was wildly popular, but in 2007 the first iPhone launched. And the photography market changed. Today, more than 2 billion iPhones — all with cameras — have been sold, plus all the Android smartphones. For people who want a better camera to explore more serious photography there’s the now-$899 Canon EOS RP. It’s a little long in the tooth, but still a great entry point with an easy upgrade path in the modern Canon mirrorless full-frame system. So what does Canon (and the entry level camera customer) really have to gain from cheaper mirrorless Rebel with a cropped sensor? I just seriously doubt there’s much more gold to mine in that market with any ILC.
> 
> An upmarket R7 in the $2,000-$2,500 range might make more sense, if Canon sees enough potential buyers to justify the expense of bringing it to market. I’m skeptical Canon can even make that case, though personally I’d love to see a competent R7 described by this rumor.
> 
> I live on a tourist destination island where 10 years ago it was common to see visitors lugging around Rebel-type cameras. Today, not so much. nearly everyone is snapping away with their very adequate smartphone cameras. Sure, I rarely see anyone with a serious camera-lens combo, but when I do it’s not an inexpensive Rebel-type. I just think that time has gone. We’ll see what Canon thinks. I could be wrong.


Agree. From the 1960s to the 2000s there was a single dominant 35mm SLR format, which still drives today's cameras and was preceded by the 35mm rangefinders. APS-C was created for financial and technical reasons having to do with sensor development at the time. There is no good reason why consumer level cameras have to have an APS-C sensor today as the cost differences have become insignificant. 

On the other hand, the APS-C format as a viable option for enthusiasts seeking to artificially extend the "reach" of their lenses is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. It makes sense for Canon to offer a high-end option for people who have the disposable income to buy an R7, and it appears from the increasing pace of the rumors and increased confidence of the site administrators that such a body is on its way. Skepticism is certainly justifiable, but at some point we may have to accept that Canon actually knows the market better than the self-appointed experts on this forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> I would guess that most people who buy an M camera have no need of an upgrade path. And the lack of one is not likely a serious impediment to moving upstream in the Canon R system.


I suspect that was Canon’s conclusion as well, since they decided to not provide an upgrade path to the RF mount. They had ample data to guide that decision.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 1, 2022)

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts an M to EF, now RF upgrade path theory, in general is a CR thing, not a Canon thing. I have never, not once felt all of a companys lines needed to blend and merge.

Any industry. Nothing wrong with distinct, stand alone product lines. 

Furthermore, are any people on CR heralding the M to RF path really in that boat? A few sure but....As always, we are a small minority and the notion Canon reads this site makes me crack up. Sorry Craig.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> …at some point we may have to accept that Canon actually knows the market better than the self-appointed experts on this forum.


That’s been my point all along.

People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.

People on this forum claim the EOS M line is dead. Canon knows it’s the best-selling ILC domestically. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming the EOS M line is dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.

People on this forum claim there is a huge demand for a 7-series APS-C MILC. Canon launched the 7D in 2009, and knew exactly how many units sold. It took them 5 years to bring out the 7DII, a longer refresh cycle than any other camera line including the 1-series. Canon knows exactly how many 7DII units sold. It’s been 8 years now, and there has been neither a 7DIII nor a mirrorless replacement. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming there is massive demand for a high-end Canon APS-C MILC, when logic shows the demand cannot be that high or Canon, who we agree knows the market better than anyone on this forum, has not seen any need to meet that supposed demand.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been my point all along.
> 
> People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.
> 
> ...


Wait...you actually mean that what we see around us when out and about, what our friends own and what people chat about online might not be what Canon knows? 

*I am shocked I tell you. *


----------



## Botts (May 1, 2022)

john1970 said:


> An RFS lens lineup does not make sense to me, but what do I know. The RFS would be a mirrorless equivalent of the EF-S. Wait and see, but I would only buy RF lenses so they could be used on both cropped and full frame mounts.


The more affordable RF lenses seems completely reasonable in price and the RP isn't that expensive. Given the markets move to more Prosumer, does crop make sense still?

I'm still waiting for an EOS R replacement, that thing is long in the tooth, but still packs some features that make it more desirable than an RP, but the choice still feels kind of yucky.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I'd bet dollars to doughnuts an M to EF, now RF upgrade path theory, in general is a CR thing, not a Canon thing. I have never, not once felt all of a companys lines needed to blend and merge.
> 
> Any industry. Nothing wrong with distinct, stand alone product lines.
> 
> Furthermore, are any people on CR heralding the M to RF path really in that boat? A few sure but....As always, we are a small minority and the notion Canon reads this site makes me crack up. Sorry Craig.


In a shrinking market with unpredictable future strictly seperated product lines make companies unflexible and it's more expensive to develop new products... 
Sony and Nikon aren't stupid! Canon will go with RF in the same direction


----------



## john1970 (May 1, 2022)

Botts said:


> The more affordable RF lenses seems completely reasonable in price and the RP isn't that expensive. Given the markets move to more Prosumer, does crop make sense still?
> 
> I'm still waiting for an EOS R replacement, that thing is long in the tooth, but still packs some features that make it more desirable than an RP, but the choice still feels kind of yucky.


I think crop makes sense for those who want a lightweight setup for wildlife. A R7 coupled with a 100-500 mm lens would be a very solid combination. Just my opinion.


----------



## Czardoom (May 1, 2022)

Botts said:


> The more affordable RF lenses seems completely reasonable in price and the RP isn't that expensive. Given the markets move to more Prosumer, does crop make sense still?
> 
> I'm still waiting for an EOS R replacement, that thing is long in the tooth, but still packs some features that make it more desirable than an RP, but the choice still feels kind of yucky.


Currently on Amazon.com, you can buy a DSLR rebel w/ kit lens for $499. You can buy the M50 w/ kit lens for $699. The RP (body only) is $999. This is why crop still makes sense, and the move to more Prosumer is still not replacing the Rebels and the M50 as Canon's best selling cameras on Amazon (and no doubt other similar retailers). For the vast majority of people, $500-700 difference is still a big deal.


----------



## Czardoom (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been my point all along.
> 
> People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.
> 
> ...


Neuro, don;t you see, people don't want facts and data because facts and data interfere with their desire to show how smart they are. Anybody can look at the data and make reasonable deductions, but what is the fun in that? Better to show how smart you are by somehow finding a new theory, a unique interpretion, so that you stand out from the crowd! It's a "hot take" world. The more outrageous the better! You, my friend, are a party-pooper!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I'd bet dollars to doughnuts an M to EF, now RF upgrade path theory, in general is a CR thing, not a Canon thing. I have never, not once felt all of a companys lines needed to blend and merge.


I doubt it is most people but there are people who want Canon professional mirrorless cameras but can't afford them yet.
I can see them being a little frustrated. That being said all they need is a Viltrox adapter and EF lenses until they can afford an RP.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 1, 2022)

Botts said:


> The more affordable RF lenses seems completely reasonable in price and the RP isn't that expensive. Given the markets move to more Prosumer, does crop make sense still?


For people who want distance that 1.6 crop will save a lot of money on lenses.
Canon did make super-telephoto more accessible with the RF 100-400, RF 100-500, RF 600 f/11, and RF 800 f/11 but those could still benefit from a 1.6 crop.
People who just want to save money are probably better off just sticking to older cameras anyway.


----------



## reefroamer (May 1, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Agree. From the 1960s to the 2000s there was a single dominant 35mm SLR format, which still drives today's cameras and was preceded by the 35mm rangefinders. APS-C was created for financial and technical reasons having to do with sensor development at the time. There is no good reason why consumer level cameras have to have an APS-C sensor today as the cost differences have become insignificant.
> 
> On the other hand, the APS-C format as a viable option for enthusiasts seeking to artificially extend the "reach" of their lenses is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. It makes sense for Canon to offer a high-end option for people who have the disposable income to buy an R7, and it appears from the increasing pace of the rumors and increased confidence of the site administrators that such a body is on its way. Skepticism is certainly justifiable, but at some point we may have to accept that Canon actually knows the market better than the self-appointed experts on this forum.


Absolutely agree. Canon just needs a viable business case and the parts supply to make an enthusiast R7. Only Canon knows if the numbers add up. I hope they do. I bought my RF 100-500 with the outside hope I could pair it someday to a good crop-sensor R-mount body someday in addition to R6. Loved the Ef 100-400 with my 7DII, but sold them recently.


----------



## entoman (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model).


It doesn't necessarily follow that APS-C RF cameras would result in RF-S lenses, except maybe for one or two compact kit lenses, because there are already many compact and lightweight RF lenses that would perfectly complement an APS-C body, e.g:

RF 16mm F2.8
RF 35mm F2.8 macro
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3
RF 85mm F2 macro
RF 600mm F11
RF 800mm F11

Multiply the focal length of the above lenses by 1.6x and you end up with a very solid and very affordable collection of lightweight lenses covering everything from 25mm-1280mm in full frame equivalents. All that is missing is an ultra-wide zoom, which could be one of the two kit lenses.

If the imaginary "R7" is a Rebel or 90D replacement, the above lenses are probably enough to satisfy potential purchasers.

If the imaginary "R7" is a serious sports/ wildlife tool, just use existing hi-end RF lenses, and get greater reach from using shorter and lighter focal lengths.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been my point all along.
> 
> People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.
> 
> ...


This site is about rumors. And rumors are about the future and NOT what's now! You cannot predict the future only by looking what's now. If something is selling well TODAY doesn't mean it's also selling well in the FUTURE. Canon (and some self announced experts!) can make prognoses by a lot of data only they have. But data can fail, and therefore prognoses can fail. In the end some human (manager) has to decide which way to go. And he can also fail. No one can predict the future (except self announced experts of course!)


----------



## reefroamer (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> entoman said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't necessarily follow that APS-C RF cameras would result in RF-S lenses, except maybe for one or two compact kit lenses, because there are already many compact and lightweight RF lenses that would perfectly complement an APS-C body, e.g:
> ...


----------



## Dragon (May 1, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> I seriously doubt there will ever be an APS-C mirrorless Rebel, much as some people here might want one. Times have changed since the first Rebel was introduced in 2003 for $899 body, $999 kit, with a 6mp sensor. The Rebel line was wildly popular, but in 2007 the first iPhone launched. And the photography market changed. Today, more than 2 billion iPhones — all with cameras — have been sold, plus all the Android smartphones. For people who want a better camera to explore more serious photography there’s the now-$899 Canon EOS RP. It’s a little long in the tooth, but still a great entry point with an easy upgrade path in the modern Canon mirrorless full-frame system. So what does Canon (and the entry level camera customer) really have to gain from cheaper mirrorless Rebel with a cropped sensor? I just seriously doubt there’s much more gold to mine in that market with any ILC.
> 
> An upmarket R7 in the $2,000-$2,500 range might make more sense, if Canon sees enough potential buyers to justify the expense of bringing it to market. I’m skeptical Canon can even make that case, though personally I’d love to see a competent R7 described by this rumor.
> 
> I live on a tourist destination island where 10 years ago it was common to see visitors lugging around Rebel-type cameras. Today, not so much. nearly everyone is snapping away with their very adequate smartphone cameras. Sure, I rarely see anyone with a serious camera-lens combo, but when I do it’s not an inexpensive Rebel-type. I just think that time has gone. We’ll see what Canon thinks. I could be wrong.


It must also be remembered that the $899 spent on the original rebel is now worth $1,402, which is over $100 more than an RP with a 24-105 kit lens. The only issue is that the RP is long in the tooth and needs a more competent replacement. That same math puts the M50 mark II at $448 in 2003 $, or almost exactly half the price of that original rebel. The term "entry level camera" needs to be thought about before being loosely tossed around, particularly when mobile phones are going for north of $1,000.


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

entoman said:


> It doesn't necessarily follow that APS-C RF cameras would result in RF-S lenses, except maybe for one or two compact kit lenses, because there are already many compact and lightweight RF lenses that would perfectly complement an APS-C body, e.g:
> 
> RF 16mm F2.8
> RF 35mm F2.8 macro
> ...


I don't care about lenses. I already have all I need as EF and EF-S an zero problem with adapting them! A new ultra wide zoom or general purpose zoom (like 15-85) as RF-S would be nice, but I don't need it. Right now I only care about cameras. By the way... Even if Canon decides not to build RF-S lenses, maybe some other manufacturer will!


----------



## John Wilde (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been my point all along.
> 
> People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.
> 
> People on this forum claim the EOS M line is dead. Canon knows it’s the best-selling ILC domestically. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming the EOS M line is dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.


I think the big long-term question is "Will Canon allow DSLRs and/or M to slowly wither away by not continuing to develop new models of them?


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

john1970 said:


> I think crop makes sense for those who want a lightweight setup for wildlife. A R7 coupled with a 100-500 mm lens would be a very solid combination. Just my opinion.


Some hardcore "data" and "facts" fascists won't stop telling you there is no market for this and/or it's only your opinion... 
But I'm with you!


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

216 comments on a rumor with zero credibility strongly indicates that there is no market for this rumor ... Ask [B]neuroanatomist[/B] for further explanation!


----------



## Dragon (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> 216 comments on a rumor with zero credibility strongly indicates that there is no market for this rumor ... Ask [B]neuroanatomist[/B] for further explanation!


216 comments spread over little more that a dozen commenters strongly indicates --- nothing! (with due credit to Shakespeare).


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> 216 comments spread over little more that a dozen commenters strongly indicates --- nothing! (with due credit to Shakespeare).


So... You wrote here for "nothing"?
Sounds like sadly waste of time!
Maybe you should find a hobby... I find photographing quite relaxing!


----------



## Dragon (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> So... You wrote here for "nothing"?
> Sounds like sadly waste of time!
> Maybe you should find a hobby... I find photographing quite relaxing!


You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.


----------



## Martin K (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.


Or not, as the case may be


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.


I think this is exactly what newer generations would call "CRINGE"!


----------



## entoman (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Even if Canon decides not to build RF-S lenses, maybe some other manufacturer will!


That's a big "maybe"...

Canon are not licensing RF mount to third parties, so independents have to reverse-engineer.

AFAIK, at the moment the only non-Canon lenses in RF mount are the 14mm and 85mm Samyang/Rokinon models, and the (excellent) totally manual Laowa lenses. However,
Sigma are reckoned to be working on RF mount designs, and Tamron will probably follow soon afterwards, so a few independent RF lenses should start to appear in 2023.
But most if not all of these will likely be full frame lenses, as that will maximise sales.

Adapted EF-S lenses should work fine on an imaginary "R7" body, but they'll be optically inferior (but still absolutely fine) to RF equivalents, and will not be able to take advantage of combined IBIS/OIS stabilisation. Also, DSLR lenses tend to autofocus slightly slower than RF versions, which may be relevant *IF* the imaginary "R7" was to be a serious wildlife/sports tool.


----------



## Dragon (May 1, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I think this is exactly what newer generations would call "CRINGE"!


Sadly, you still haven't figured out that the joke was on you .


----------



## lote82 (May 1, 2022)

Dragon said:


> 216 comments spread over little more that a dozen commenters strongly indicates --- nothing! (with due credit to Shakespeare).


Listen...
When I make fun of people pretending their chosen data and facts can proof anything, I don't think about you! When I said, you "indeed have some good arguments" I meant it. When I said "Thank you!" I meant it. I know you are also talking about facts and data, but you do it in a humble way. And most important, you can differenciate between facts and opinions! I really respect you and the explanations (which really made sense!) you made even if some of the conclusions you made don't represent mine!
Defending a friend(?) shows good character. But this is not your fight. Anyway... I will stop bullying (at least till announcement of APS-C camera!)


----------



## entoman (May 1, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I think the big long-term question is "Will Canon allow DSLRs and/or M to slowly wither away by not continuing to develop new models of them?


It would make poor economic sense to let crop DSLRs wither away, until such time that Canon have successfully marketed MILCs that undercut them on price.

APS-C
Currently, in the UK, the cheapest M series Canon MILC is the M50 Mkii which costs £534 body only.
The cheapest APS-C DSLR is the 2000D, which costs £409 body only.

Potential purchasers are also likely to compare the cost and availability of lenses. There are far more lenses available in EF mount (Canon and third party), and almost all of them are considerably cheaper than the 26 Canon RF lenses.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I will say, what _does_ offend me are people who ignore facts and data, and make asinine statements that are easily refuted by those facts and data. A prime example being people who claim DSLRs or the EOS M system are ‘dead’ despite ample, readily available data that show their claim to be false and their ongoing false statements to be completely idiotic.



It might be better to say that DSLRs and the EOS M system are not dead *yet. *I don't think one should ignore and totally discount that Canon does not seem to be making much of an investment in either system. Certainly the annual releases of multiple new Rebels has slipped and although I don't follow the M system, it doesn't seem as though Canon has been putting a lot of effort into introducing new models. It is perfectly logical for people to look at those facts and data and surmise that the future of both the M system and DSLRs might not be particularly bright. Obviously you disagree. But you need to recognize that others can apply logic and reasoning and come to a different conclusion without being "asinine."


----------



## David - Sydney (May 1, 2022)

tron said:


> They did that with RF400 2.8L IS and RF600mm 4L IS. In 800 and 1200 lenses they also inserted improved 2X converters.


I thought that the current 2x RF TC was used. Has anyone shows the MDF/tested the differences?


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I will say, what _does_ offend me are people who ignore facts and data, and make asinine statements that are easily refuted by those facts and data.


Well, we all feel that way. I would not call it asinine but I would say that claiming that an R7 would have to sell for $3,500, as another commenter stated, is pretty easily refuted by the facts and data of the R6 price point.


----------



## mpb001 (May 1, 2022)

I really don’t understand why Canon has decided to go with a crop sensor mirrorless camera and make RFS lenses. It seems like a bad move and will use resources for other products. The reason I say this is full frame camera prices are lowering all of the time. The RP can be bought for under $1000 and eventually we will probably see $500 full frame cameras.


----------



## AJ (May 1, 2022)

Guess I'm late to the party once again. Anyhoo. 
Sony and Nikon have APSC E-mount and Z-mount bodies, respectively. I don't see why Canon can't do up an APSC R-mount body.
I guess the big question is if it'll be a high-end birding lens, or a low-end rebel-type thing that may replace the M series.
If the rumor of two lenses is true, then a standard zoom and an ultrawide would make sense.
Sony and Nikon both have 16-50/3.5-6.3 kit lenses.
Whatever these two lenses may be, my crystal ball says to expect optics with barrel distortion and compulsory distortion correction. This will get the size and the price down.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses.





lote82 said:


> I don't care about lenses. I already have all I need as EF and EF-S an zero problem with adapting them! A new ultra wide zoom or general purpose zoom (like 15-85) as RF-S would be nice, but I don't need it. Right now I only care about cameras.


All about the logic. A high end R7 is all about reach (pixels on duck, working distance for macro, cheaper telephoto lenses (70-200mm vs 300mm) etc) and doesn't infer that RF-s lenses must be released. Yes, adapted EF-s lenses are fine and fit for purpose and (hopefully) people needing that reach will understand the EF-s options. The RF18-45mm on the roadmap could be dual purpose kit lens for both APS-C and full frame. The only missing link for full focal length coverage is an EF-s 10-22mm equivalent. RF-s lenses are definitely not mandatory.



lote82 said:


> By the way... Even if Canon decides not to build RF-S lenses, maybe some other manufacturer will!


Unlikely given the current state of the 3rd party RF lens market... No major manufacturer is providing options but you are welcome to buy a Meike if you like.
https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-happening-with-third-party-lenses-for-the-rf-mount/


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> That’s been my point all along.
> People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.


My feeling is that there are many xxxD/xxxxD kits out there sitting unused in people's houses in first world countries as they just spent >USD1000 on a mobile handset that takes more than acceptable shots. People thought that they were getting a much better camera but it was too hard to use vs phones. Choosing which new phone to upgrade to every 2 years seems to be predominately due to better camera options.
It is similar to iPods/mp3 players taking over portable CD players. Simplicity/size/average quality won.

It is more that likely that DSLRs are selling well in countries where average incomes are lower and they have the skills to get good photos.
I always found it interesting that photographers on cruse ships used lower end model bodies but reasonable lighting setups meant getting decent ie very profitable photo sales.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> I'm sure Canon know that a significant number of 7D/7DMkii owners were desperate for a 7DMkiii, but for reasons best known to themselves decided against it.


I always contend that the 7D/7Dii were unicorns. Very good in many ways at a pricepoint that was too good to be true. Maybe they just weren't profitable enough to warrant a 7Diii. My first DLSR was a 7D+24-105mm/4 and it was a gateway to a lot more dollars going their way 



entoman said:


> But I think Canon were wrong on that subject. They certainly aren't infallible. They went through a long spell when they sat on their laurels and became complacent, allowing Sony to take a large slice of the market. Canon have also made some notable miscalculations (swipe bar on R comes to mind). I think you may be slightly blinded by brand loyalty.


Yes, Canon was slow to release FF mirrorless models and the R seemed to be a rebadged 5Div albeit quite a decent camera. I guess that Canon saw a second-mover OEM as being a better strategy than bleeding edge. Sony proved that the market existed and people were willing to jump ship. The R5/6 certainly got everyone's attention though and the RP is still at an unbeaten price point.

Canon haven't made many errors when it comes to ergonomics though. Good on them for trying something new though. Some loved it but many didn't. I see it as a precursor to the lens control ring. I haven't used it on my RF lenses but many others love it. Good to have options.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My grab-and-go camera is the R3, with the RF 24-105/4L for general use or the RF 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. For something more elaborate and less casual, I usually take the R3 with more esoteric lenses. I use the M6 when I am traveling light, either on an overnight trip with only carryon luggage, or a family vacation somewhere we've been before with less interesting photo ops.


For casual shots, it is only iPhone for me now. The computational photography is faster and more than sufficient for most uses now. The HDR/live features are surprisingly effective and easy to share.

I'll take my R5 anywhere where the iPhone can't take "better" photos.... indoor sports, telephoto, astro, macro, long exposure land/seascapes, high ISO/white balance underwater etc.
Weirdly enough, on a recent trip to Fiji (first time overseas in 2.5 years!), I only used my EF16-35mm/4. Bull shark diving, fire dancing, 35mm portraits, split over/under beach photos etc was perfect.

I tried to attach a shot of one "smiling"at me but got a server error :-(


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> I think the big long-term question is "Will Canon allow DSLRs and/or M to slowly wither away by not continuing to develop new models of them?


I agree, it’s the big question. Ironic that some who ‘liked’ your post seem to disagree and have decided it’s already been answered.

Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It might be better to say that DSLRs and the EOS M system are not dead *yet. *


Fair point. Then again, I'm not dead *yet*, and the Earth has not *yet* been consumed by the cataclysmic conversion of the Sun to a red dwarf. Timing is everything.



unfocused said:


> I don't think one should ignore and totally discount that Canon does not seem to be making much of an investment in either system. Certainly the annual releases of multiple new Rebels has slipped and although I don't follow the M system, it doesn't seem as though Canon has been putting a lot of effort into introducing new models. It is perfectly logical for people to look at those facts and data and surmise that the future of both the M system and DSLRs might not be particularly bright. Obviously you disagree. But you need to recognize that others can apply logic and reasoning and come to a different conclusion without being "asinine."


Where have I suggested that the future of the DSLR is bright? MILCs overtook DSLRs for unit sales a few years ago (but not that many), and MILCs definitely generate more revenue (consistent with most DSLR sales being of entry level models). But to claim that DSLRs are 'dead' is asinine, period. As I've pointed out, they have accounted for a stable 44% of ILC shipments for 2020, 2021 and so far in 2022. Anyone who concludes that a segment comprising nearly half of a market is dead is certainly not successfully using logic and reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Similarly for the M system – Japan remains the proportionately greatest consumer of MILCs (44% is the global metric, in Japan only ~21% of ILCs shipped are DLSRs), and in Japan an EOS M camera has topped the sales ranking almost every month for nearly three years.

One other interesting point. I just launched a private browser window for Amazon.com (so my personal search history is not a factor), and searched 'Canon camera'. Excluding results that weren't cameras, the results in order were 5 DSLRs, then a P&S bridge camera, then 5 more DSLRs, then the M50 II, then 3 more DSLRs, then the R6. So, for ILCs the first R-series camera came on page 2 of the search results, after 13 DSLRs and one APS-C MILC. Obviously that's geographically influenced (although the Americas still have higher MILC shipments, Europe gets more DLSRs than MILCs). But at least on Amazon.com, anyone who would conclude that DSLRs are dead would have to be an idiot. Incidentally, on amazon.de the first 4 Canon kameras are DSLRs, then the M50 II, then the R. So the DSLR is looking pretty lively in Germany, too. Except to people unable to draw logical conclusions from available data.


----------



## Bishop80 (May 2, 2022)

I would think the EOS M mount is already optimized for APS-C mirrorless. Why not just build a different body (ie, more DSLR-like) around that and expand the M lens lineup?
One difference between M and R mount might be the high speed comms protocol of R, but I really don't know the practical difference between the two and if it ultimately matters for "non-pro/L" APS-C lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

Is there a CR1/2/3 rating for this rumour? I just noticed that it isn't mentioned. based on the wording, you would expect CR3


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 2, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Is there a CR1/2/3 rating for this rumour? I just noticed that it isn't mentioned. based on the wording, you would expect CR3











Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]


Specifications for the Canon EOS R7 are few and far between, and unfortunately, unconfirmed at this time. However, these are the specifications that I have rece



www.canonrumors.com





This is a corresponding article, actually this one seemed merge quite nicely into the other. CR1


----------



## Jethro (May 2, 2022)

mpb001 said:


> I really don’t understand why Canon has decided to go with a crop sensor mirrorless camera and make RFS lenses. It seems like a bad move and will use resources for other products. The reason I say this is full frame camera prices are lowering all of the time. The RP can be bought for under $1000 and eventually we will probably see $500 full frame cameras.


It hasn't decided - we're still in CR1 rumour territory for the APS-C body, and maybe not even that for specialist RF-S lenses. You're right about the effect of future lower $ FFM bodies on this issue, and there were rumours last year of 1 or 2 upcoming low $ FF bodies, which haven't been sighted, but if they were would reduce the 'space' in Canon's lineup for a mirrorless Rebel replacement. But part of the hopes for a APS-C body is that it will be a successor to the 7Dii, and therefore unlikely to be low $.


----------



## masterpix (May 2, 2022)

RFs lenses makes sense only if Canon is going to make the R-Rebel camera, the price of RF glass is not something beginners can afford at the moment and if Canon wants to move Rebel users to R cameras, it may well be a great idea, especially with cancellation of the M line which is only reasonable at this time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

masterpix said:


> ...cancellation of the M line which is only reasonable at this time.


Why? If you ran a business, would it seem reasonable to you to cancel a product line that was consistently the best-selling one in its segment in your home country?


----------



## masterpix (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why? If you ran a business, would it seem reasonable to you to cancel a product line that was consistently the best-selling one in its segment in your home country?


Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

masterpix said:


> Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.


So you'd advise Toyota to stop making the Camry to eliminate a production line? Lol. I hope you don't actually run a business, unless it's a sole proprietorship where your decisions only affect you.


----------



## John Wilde (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?


(CIPA) For 2021 as a whole in yen, it was 91,281,997 for DSLRs and 324,552,875 for mirrorless That's -5.7% for DSLRs, and +31.4% for mirrorless, compared to 2020.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> (CIPA) For 2021 as a whole in yen, it was 91,281,997 for DSLRs and 324,552,875 for mirrorless That's -5.7% for DSLRs, and +31.4% for mirrorless, compared to 2020.


I am referring to units shipped. As I stated in my reply to @unfocused, MILCs are clearly ahead in revenues.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]
> 
> 
> Specifications for the Canon EOS R7 are few and far between, and unfortunately, unconfirmed at this time. However, these are the specifications that I have rece
> ...


Yes but https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r7-has-been-pushed-to-q4-of-2022/
also has no rating but "We have confirmed that the camera will be called the “EOS R7” and it will come this year"


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

masterpix said:


> Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.


Canon makes a variety of products and segments within product markets. Should they stop making printers because it means 2 supply chains as they make camera bodies (and lenses and medical equipment, and scanners and semiconductor manufacturing equipment and security etc)? 

If it is profitable as a standalone product that can make use of existing IP and little to no ongoing indirect costs (eg R&D) then it makes sense to keep it. No use killing a cash cow.


----------



## lote82 (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree, it’s the big question. Ironic that some who ‘liked’ your post seem to disagree and have decided it’s already been answered.
> 
> Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?


I liked the comment because that is indeed the big question!

Yes, for me personally the question is already answered and therefore I already stated my OPINION! (That doesn't mean I will be right, because nobody can predict the future). 

You also already answered the question (more than once) by giving facts and data and think you have a PROOF for your answer!


----------



## lote82 (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> That's a big "maybe"...
> 
> Canon are not licensing RF mount to third parties, so independents have to reverse-engineer.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm aware of this!
I'm not a professional photographer or pretend to be the best hobbyist in the world who only needs L-lenses.

The image quality I can squeeze out of APS-C with decent glass (and sometimes even with poor) is in most cases more than enough for me!
Maybe someday I will shoot more low light and therefore an upgrade path to FF would be very welcome!
To be honest, I don't know how for ex. my Sigma 150-600mm C will perform with adapter on RF mount. But as far as I know it will perform good enough.

Do you have experience with Laowa or own one? 
I'm interested in the 100mm macro ... would you recommend it (not mainly but also) for Portrait?


----------



## entoman (May 2, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Do you have experience with Laowa or own one?
> I'm interested in the 100mm macro ... would you recommend it (not mainly but also) for Portrait?


I have the Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro, which goes from 2.5-5x magnification. At high magnification manual focus works best for me. The almost conical design of the lens makes it easy to position small flash units close to the subject. Optical quality is excellent. Definitely recommended if you are into serious high magnification. I use it to photograph tiny caterpillars, insect eggs etc, using tripod and focus rail.

For longer focal length "macro" i.e. shooting larger insects, reptiles etc I prefer Canon 100mm and 180mm as both have autofocus, which is much faster than focusing manually when you have timid subjects that only settle momentarily. The Canon 100mm has good optical image stabilisation, but the 180mm doesn't. IBIS isn't particularly effective with macro.

Many people use the 100mm macro for portraits and close-ups of wedding rings etc. If I was shooting those genres I'd choose the RF 85mm F2 macro instead, as it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and more suited to the task IMO.

Hope that helps.


----------



## roby17269 (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, they don’t. But reasonable deductions can be made from sales data that are publicly available.
> 
> Who is personally offended by the idea of an R7?
> 
> ...


I am with you in some aspects. I am not offended at all by the idea of a crop RF camera, whatever shape it will come in (if it will)... but I will say that, as someone invested in FF and not interested in crop, egoistically, I'd prefer Canon to focus on delivering more FF RF cameras and lenses... meaning I fear that crop bodies and lenses would reduce the R&D resources for FF, in a time when R&D resources are probably stretched.

Regardless of my feelings, I do not believe that a crop RF camera will be introduced. I will not be majorly unhappy if I will be proven wrong.

But I do disagree on the outlook for the EF and M systems. I do not believe that Canon will "kill" them outright, but I do believe that Canon will leave them in limbo with 0 investments and let them die of "attrition". They will of course keep selling existing offerings since they require no further investment, as long as there will be enough buyers to justify support costs and as manufacturing these cameras and lenses will not jeopardize the manufacturing of higher-end models.
What ample and readily available data is there, apart from good sales in Japan, to prove that things will improve in the future for EF and M? 
Reasonable deductions based on multiple instances of manufacturers saying that they are focusing on the higher end of their offerings to serve pros and enthusiasts make me think that Canon and Sony and Nikon will pay at best lip service for crop cameras and lenses. Also, lack of new EF and M cameras and lenses will sooner or later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## JasonL (May 2, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> I am with you in some aspects. I am not offended at all by the idea of a crop RF camera, whatever shape it will come in (if it will)... but I will say that, as someone invested in FF and not interested in crop, egoistically, I'd prefer Canon to focus on delivering more FF RF cameras and lenses... meaning I fear that crop bodies and lenses would reduce the R&D resources for FF, in a time when R&D resources are probably stretched.
> 
> Regardless of my feelings, I do not believe that a crop RF camera will be introduced. I will not be majorly unhappy if I will be proven wrong.
> 
> ...


Canon knows that an R7 built with the same weather sealing and robustness of the 7D2 will be a huge winner. Not with folks attaching a kit 18-55 lens. With amateur wildlife and sports photographers that cannot afford $20K of flagship level bodies and long L glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2022)

JasonL said:


> Canon knows that an R7 built with the same weather sealing and robustness of the 7D2 will be a huge winner.


Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII? 

Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.


----------



## [email protected] (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> I have the Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro, which goes from 2.5-5x magnification. At high magnification manual focus works best for me. The almost conical design of the lens makes it easy to position small flash units close to the subject. Optical quality is excellent. Definitely recommended if you are into serious high magnification. I use it to photograph tiny caterpillars, insect eggs etc, using tripod and focus rail.
> 
> For longer focal length "macro" i.e. shooting larger insects, reptiles etc I prefer Canon 100mm and 180mm as both have autofocus, which is much faster than focusing manually when you have timid subjects that only settle momentarily. The Canon 100mm has good optical image stabilisation, but the 180mm doesn't. IBIS isn't particularly effective with macro.
> 
> ...



I have that Laowa too. I use it primarily for water insects, ect., for a nature magazine I contribute to. My beef with the lens is that the zoom feature creeps something awful when facing downward (important for watery subjects). I have have grip tape available to tape it in place. 

Will also recommend the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro. This is not the "zero d" 15mm version of theirs. The wide angle macro is awesome for showing critters in their context.


----------



## scyrene (May 2, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> For people who want distance that 1.6 crop will save a lot of money on lenses.
> Canon did make super-telephoto more accessible with the RF 100-400, RF 100-500, RF 600 f/11, and RF 800 f/11 but those could still benefit from a 1.6 crop.
> People who just want to save money are probably better off just sticking to older cameras anyway.


I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.


Always tradeoffs. A friend of mine used to tell his video clients "cheap, fast, good. You can have two of the three, but not all three. Now pick which two you want."

More seriously though, I do wonder if we are moving into an era where the next stage of innovation in optics is likely to come through software solutions. It seems that lenses still reside (mostly) in the analog era, while camera bodies live in the digital age. I wonder if, in the not too distant future digital solutions will become standard for many lens designs.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.


Maybe the 800mm will be "over the edge". I don't know. Will definitely try it myself ! But if I want 35mm-equivalent reach of 800mm, at approx. the _same weight_ as the RF800/11 lens, I can get the RF100-500 as a _*much*_ _*more *_versatile lens on an APS-C body:
1) Equivalent to 160-800mm fullframe zoom
2) Probably faster AF than the RF800
3) Much much better minimum focusing distance
4) Full sensor AF-coverage (vs. only center-part with RF800 on fullframe body)
5) f7.1 APS-C should also be comparable with f11 on fullframe I guess?

PS. Personally I don't only want R7 for "reach". I want it because it (I assume) is high-end and fast tool I can afford, and because the _all-purpose kit_ I want will be much more lightweight with the lenses I would get (or EF-S lenses I already have) for an APC-C camera, _including _wideangle lenses. But reach for wildlife and sport/action is definitely also a good thing.


----------



## Dragon (May 2, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Always tradeoffs. A friend of mine used to tell his video clients "cheap, fast, good. You can have two of the three, but not all three. Now pick which two you want."
> 
> More seriously though, I do wonder if we are moving into an era where the next stage of innovation in optics is likely to come through software solutions. It seems that lenses still reside (mostly) in the analog era, while camera bodies live in the digital age. I wonder if, in the not too distant future digital solutions will become standard for many lens designs.


There certainly is room for more effective digital correction. A good example is lateral CA. The current approach is to simply mask the color fringing, which doesn't repair the resolution damage that is generated by CA. OTOH, given the known CA of a lens, the raw files could be jiggered by accurately scaling the R, G, and B channels to exactly the same dimension. That would noticeably improve the corner resolution of many lenses. AFAIK, there is no raw converter that currently goes to this level to fix CA, but it is certainly possible either in a raw converter, or in camera as the raw file is being created. Field flatness is not so easy, but all lens design is a balancing act, so building a lens that optimizes the characteristics that cannot be digitally corrected at the expense of those that can may well result in a better overall image.


----------



## Dragon (May 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.


The 800 f/11 with a 1.4x TC mounted on an R5 does show some improvement in detail, but certainly not 1.4x improvement. With some of the smart tools (like Topaz Sharpen), the files are quite usable, but they are noticeably soft out of camera. A 32 MP APS-c sensor on the bare lens should show very close the same IQ as a 45MP FF sensor on the 1.4 TC. The challenge is that you now will never see the FF quality of the lens (which is noticeably sharper at the pixel level) and must always live with the TC equivalent quality. As I see it, the fallacy of using a FF lens on and APS-c camera is that you only get to use something less that 1/2 the light that comes through the lens. The only way to fix that is to use a focal reducer, which effectively shortens the reach of the lens so that the APS-c reach is similar to the FF reach. With a 1.4 TC and a FF sensor, you only get half the light that comes through the non-extended lens, but you do have the option of removing the TC and getting all the light. For lenses that don't support a TC, an APS-c sensor is the only way to extend the reach, but my sense is that that is a minority use case. Just my two cents, but based on using a wide variety of lenses with 70D, 90D, M5, M6 II, 5DS-r, and R5. At this point, the R5 is my go-to camera unless I need small and light, in which case the M5 or M6 II gets the nod.


----------



## Czardoom (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII?
> 
> Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.


I agree that the evidence says that the wildlife market is not a large one. I do believe, however, that Canon will release such a camera. Unlike others, I make no claim whatsoever to know sales numbers, but when I look at Canon's offerings over the years, I would say that they are the most likely of the big 3 to produce more niche cameras. I would say that the R3 is evidence of this - if they were looking for a more "general usage' camera appealing to more potential buyers, then I think the camera would have had a higher MP count. But they seem to be quite content with marketing the camera to sports and action shooters primarily. I think the 5DS R DSLR was also more of a niche camera aimed at those wanting high MPs. So, I think Canon may still try to design some of its R line to aim for more specific markets, and the Wildlife market - though not large - will be one of them.


----------



## roby17269 (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII?
> 
> Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.


Exactly... even Nikon took ages to update their Dx00 cameras and hasn't delivered a D500 mirrorless successor yet.
Sony hasn't really made any "pro crop" cameras at all.
This segment is not really getting a lot of attention from the major manufacturers, so there's not really a lot of pressure on Canon to deliver. Olympus (then, now OMD) have delivered in this space, but probably their sales were not large enough to push Canikony over the edge.

Again, these are conjectures. Canon or the others may surprise us with a R7 which is a 7D successor or equivalent camera for Nikon or Sony.
But I just do not see how that would be prioritized over new FF cameras in the current market.


----------



## entoman (May 2, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> I have that Laowa too. I use it primarily for water insects, ect., for a nature magazine I contribute to. My beef with the lens is that the zoom feature creeps something awful when facing downward (important for watery subjects). I have have grip tape available to tape it in place.
> 
> Will also recommend the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro. This is not the "zero d" 15mm version of theirs. The wide angle macro is awesome for showing critters in their context.


I use a spot of "blu tack" to stop the creep, as tape tends to leave an adhesive deposit on the lens barrel. I think if I was shooting in near-contact with water, that I'd get the 24mm macro probe, which can tolerate immersion, let alone a splash.

I have huge admiration for Venus Optics, an extremely imaginative company that brings us high quality specialised optics at a real bargain price.


----------



## Dragon (May 2, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree that the evidence says that the wildlife market is not a large one. I do believe, however, that Canon will release such a camera. Unlike others, I make no claim whatsoever to know sales numbers, but when I look at Canon's offerings over the years, I would say that they are the most likely of the big 3 to produce more niche cameras. I would say that the R3 is evidence of this - if they were looking for a more "general usage' camera appealing to more potential buyers, then I think the camera would have had a higher MP count. But they seem to be quite content with marketing the camera to sports and action shooters primarily. I think the 5DS R DSLR was also more of a niche camera aimed at those wanting high MPs. So, I think Canon may still try to design some of its R line to aim for more specific markets, and the Wildlife market - though not large - will be one of them.


I agree that Canon will respond the wildlife market. The question is the form of the response. Already, they have released the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11, which, on an R5 or R6, perform much better than many would expect. Canon has also issued a flurry of patent apps for mirror lenses and even a spotting scope design. That leaves the question as to whether the response to the market will be an APS-c body or more smaller, lighter, cheaper FF telephoto lenses. An 800 f/11 plus an R5 body is likely already less costly than a mystical R7 plus an RF 100-500L and at 800mm equivalent, the aperture is essentially the same. Something like a light, inexpensive 150-800 would pretty much eliminate any perceived advantage for the R7. Canon can address the requirement either way. If they choose the FF route, there clearly will be some folks sitting on shorter EF glass that will be unhappy, but, having both, I will say that the R5 with the 800 f/11 is more likely to get the desired results than the 90D with the EF 100-400 II (and it is also lighter to handle) unless the zoom is critical for the capture, in which case, the aforementioned 150-800 would be the evener.


----------



## entoman (May 2, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Maybe the 800mm will be "over the edge". I don't know. Will definitely try it myself ! But if I want 35mm-equivalent reach of 800mm, at approx. the same weight as the RF800/11 lens, I can get the RF100-500 as a _*much*_ _*more *_versatile lens on an APS-C body:
> 1) Equivalent to 160-800mm fullframe zoom
> 2) Probably faster AF than the RF800
> 3) Much much better minimum focusing distance
> ...


For me it is mainly about price. A hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 33MP APS-C sensor would make a lot more sense for me, as it would allow much more space around the subject when trying to track it visually - a safety margin for error when framing fast moving subjects.

The R5 sells in the UK for £4299 and the R5C for £4499, so if and when it is released, I'd expect the "R5S" to sell for about £4599 - a justifiable price IMO...

The problem with the "R7 theory" is that the only major cost saving when manufacturing, would be the smaller sensor and possibly a lower powered processor, so the APS-C wet-dream machine would likely be around £3599, and at that price only a handful of people would probably buy it. This is why I have so much skepticism about the "R7" - I just won't believe it until I see it.


----------



## Dragon (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> For me it is mainly about price. A hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 33MP APS-C sensor would make a lot more sense for me, as it would allow a lot more space around the subject when trying to track it visually - a safety margin for error when framing fast moving subjects.
> 
> The R5 sell in the UK for £4299 and the R5C for £4499, so if and when it is released, I'd expect the "R5S" to sell for about £4599 - a justifiable price IMO...
> 
> The problem with the "R7 theory" is that the only major cost saving when manufacturing would be the smaller sensor and possibly a lower powered processor, so the APS-C wet-dream machine would likely be around £3599, and at that price only a handful of people would probably buy it. This is why I have so much skepticism about the "R7" - I just won't believe it until I see it.


I agree. With the "R5s", you would get the best of both worlds - all the light from the lens and all the detail the lens can deliver - in the same shot. If you are somehow data limited, just flip the switch to crop mode . Many of the R7 speculators look at R6 pricing and then wish for an R3 style sensor and R5 features without understanding the cost implications.


----------



## JasonL (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> For me it is mainly about price. A hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 33MP APS-C sensor would make a lot more sense for me, as it would allow much more space around the subject when trying to track it visually - a safety margin for error when framing fast moving subjects.
> 
> The R5 sells in the UK for £4299 and the R5C for £4499, so if and when it is released, I'd expect the "R5S" to sell for about £4599 - a justifiable price IMO...
> 
> The problem with the "R7 theory" is that the only major cost saving when manufacturing, would be the smaller sensor and possibly a lower powered processor, so the APS-C wet-dream machine would likely be around £3599, and at that price only a handful of people would probably buy it. This is why I have so much skepticism about the "R7" - I just





Dragon said:


> I agree. With the "R5s", you would get the best of both worlds - all the light from the lens and all the detail the lens can deliver - in the same shot. If you are somehow data limited, just flip the switch to crop mode . Many of the R7 speculators look at R6 pricing and then wish for an R3 style sensor and R5 features without understanding the cost implications.


I think we're looking for decent (not spectacular) low light performance, R5/6 AF and weather sealing.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I agree that the evidence says that the wildlife market is not a large one. I do believe, however, that Canon will release such a camera. Unlike others, I make no claim whatsoever to know sales numbers, but when I look at Canon's offerings over the years, I would say that they are the most likely of the big 3 to produce more niche cameras. I would say that the R3 is evidence of this - if they were looking for a more "general usage' camera appealing to more potential buyers, then I think the camera would have had a higher MP count. But they seem to be quite content with marketing the camera to sports and action shooters primarily. I think the 5DS R DSLR was also more of a niche camera aimed at those wanting high MPs. So, I think Canon may still try to design some of its R line to aim for more specific markets, and the Wildlife market - though not large - will be one of them.


I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> For me it is mainly about price. A hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 33MP APS-C sensor would make a lot more sense for me, as it would allow much more space around the subject when trying to track it visually - a safety margin for error when framing fast moving subjects.
> 
> The R5 sells in the UK for £4299 and the R5C for £4499, so if and when it is released, I'd expect the "R5S" to sell for about £4599 - a justifiable price IMO...
> 
> The problem with the "R7 theory" is that the only major cost saving when manufacturing, would be the smaller sensor and possibly a lower powered processor, so the APS-C wet-dream machine would likely be around £3599, and at that price only a handful of people would probably buy it. This is why I have so much skepticism about the "R7" - I just won't believe it until I see it.


Of course, everyone has their own perspective. A couple of comments though. The problem with the "more space around the subject" theory is that the autofocus is (at least in my experience) less accurate when the subject is smaller in the viewfinder. I find that in 1:6 mode, my R5 is easier to focus on a small bird than it is in full frame mode. As for birds in flight, yes the extra space can be helpful but again, it can come at a price in accuracy. Of course a high mp R5 could be shot in crop mode, but for those who never intend to use it in anything but crop mode, it's kind of a waste. And, I suspect that an autofocus system specifically tuned to APS-C would be more accurate than a crop mode R5.

As far as your financial calculations go for the "wet-dream machine" you ignore the price of the R6. The major differences between the R5 and R6, to the best of my knowledge, are: a mode dial, two SD slots, the sensor resolution and a lower resolution viewfinder and rear screen. From comments received from persons who have expressed an interest in the R7 on this forum, I haven't found anyone who considers these to be deal killers, although they might prefer one or more of the R5 specs. It seems to me the autofocus is the main feature people are interested in and that is identical in the two bodies. (And of course, Canon has a record with the 7DII of putting its top of the line autofocus in the 7 series.) Since no one on this forum has any knowledge whatsoever about what goes into Canon's pricing decisions, it certainly seems plausible that an R7 could be offered in the price range of the R6. In addition, if Canon chooses to eliminate the mechanical shutter (which I expect them to do in almost all future bodies) there should be some cost savings that would make the R6 price point more viable.

Finally, let me once again make it clear that I'm not necessarily in the market for an R7 and don't really care what Canon does. I'm just surprised at how many people twist themselves into knots to come up with reasons why Canon won't do something that this site has stated that they will do. I'll say it once again, I've learned over many years of following this site and doubting its rumors that it is generally not a good idea to bet against Canon Rumors. The two most recent examples I can think of are the sensor resolutions of the 1DX III and the R3. In both cases, despite much skepticism, this site turned out to be correct.


----------



## becceric (May 2, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> Exactly... even Nikon took ages to update their Dx00 cameras and hasn't delivered a D500 mirrorless successor yet.
> Sony hasn't really made any "pro crop" cameras at all.
> This segment is not really getting a lot of attention from the major manufacturers, so there's not really a lot of pressure on Canon to deliver. Olympus (then, now OMD) have delivered in this space, but probably their sales were not large enough to push Canikony over the edge.
> 
> ...


“Canikony”.
While I love the synergistic name, that would be a conglomerate I would have mixed feelings about...


----------



## entoman (May 2, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Of course, everyone has their own perspective. A couple of comments though. The problem with the "more space around the subject" theory is that the autofocus is (at least in my experience) less accurate when the subject is smaller in the viewfinder. I find that in 1:6 mode, my R5 is easier to focus on a small bird than it is in full frame mode. As for birds in flight, yes the extra space can be helpful but again, it can come at a price in accuracy.
> 
> As far as your financial calculations go for the "wet-dream machine" is that you ignore the price of the R6. The major differences between the R5 and R6, to the best of my knowledge, are: a mode dial, two SD slots, the sensor resolution and a lower resolution viewfinder and rear screen. From comments received from persons who have expressed an interest in the R7 on this forum, I haven't found anyone who considers these to be deal killers, although they might prefer one or more of the R5 specs. It seems to me the autofocus is the main feature people are interested in and that is identical in the two bodies. (And of course, Canon has a record with the 7DII of putting its top of the line autofocus the 7 series.) Since no one on this forum has any knowledge whatsoever about what goes into Canon's pricing decisions, it certainly seems plausible that an R7 could be offered in the price range of the R6. In addition, if Canon chooses to eliminate the mechanical shutter (which I expect them to do in almost all future bodies) there should be some cost savings that would make the R6 price point more viable.


You make some good points. I certainly agree that having the subject smaller in the frame (to allow more space around the subject) makes it harder for the AF to acquire the subject, although once locked on, the R5 holds on to subjects very well.

A lot is down to the tracking skills of the photographer. Really experienced BIF shooters will have marksman-like abilities to instantly locate the subject and keep it in the viewfinder, so frame-filling APS-C would perhaps be a better option for them. I'm a general wildlife photographer so BIF only represents a fairly small percentage of my work, and I don't have marksman-like reaction speeds or tracking abilities. So I *need* a safety margin for framing, and would prefer a "R5S" provided that it could maintain a series of at least 15fps bursts without locking up the buffer.

You could be right about the price being closer to R6 than to R5C, we'll just have to wait and see.

Nikon may well have caught other manufacturers sleeping, when they introduced the "electronic-shutter only" Z9. It may take a while for Canon and Sony to adopt the same approach, or they may well feel that it is better to continue offering a choice between mechanical, EFCS and ES for the next generation of bodies. Canon in particular have tended to let other manufacturers do the beta-testing with new tech, although there are plenty of signs that the "sleeping giant" is now fully awake. It would be interesting to see whether ES-only appears in a cheaper testbed model first, or whether it goes into the "R1" first, to compete directly with the Z9.


----------



## scyrene (May 2, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII?
> 
> Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.


And when Nikon released the D500, my recollection is the forums were abuzz with the idea it would reignite that part of the market. But that was a one-off too.


----------



## entoman (May 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> And when Nikon released the D500, my recollection is the forums were abuzz with the idea it would reignite that part of the market. But that was a one-off too.


Both the 7DMkii and the D500 were hailed as state-of-art wonders when they were released, yet haven't been replaced, either in DSLR or MILC format.

I know several serious amateur wildlife photographers who still own these models and swear by them. I also know a couple of pros who still use the original 7D. Like many people here, they say they would jump at a new rugged sports/wildlife crop body. Maybe they're just a vociferous minority - just as was the case with owners of the Sony a700, which like the D500 and 7DMkii was never replaced.

There are some cameras that people "fall in love with", but which don't apparently sell in big enough numbers over a period of time - perhaps upgrade demand is lower for these models simply because they are so durable and reliable?


----------



## scyrene (May 2, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Maybe the 800mm will be "over the edge". I don't know. Will definitely try it myself ! But if I want 35mm-equivalent reach of 800mm, at approx. the _same weight_ as the RF800/11 lens, I can get the RF100-500 as a _*much*_ _*more *_versatile lens on an APS-C body:
> 1) Equivalent to 160-800mm fullframe zoom
> 2) Probably faster AF than the RF800
> 3) Much much better minimum focusing distance
> ...


Excellent points!


----------



## David - Sydney (May 2, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> What ample and readily available data is there, apart from good sales in Japan, to prove that things will improve in the future for EF and M?
> Reasonable deductions based on multiple instances of manufacturers saying that they are focusing on the higher end of their offerings to serve pros and enthusiasts make me think that Canon and Sony and Nikon will pay at best lip service for crop cameras and lenses. Also, lack of new EF and M cameras and lenses will sooner or later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Given Canon has discontinued some EF lenses, it is unlikely that they will release a new EF lens in the future. RF needs more lenses and Canon wants users to migrate as soon as possible. Note that RF lenses offer something additional to their EF counterparts to justify their higher price in most cases eg weight/size/aperture/focus speed/magnification/focal length etc. If we combine RF and EF, there is an amazing range of lenses available.

Is there a need for a new M lens? They seem to have a complete system and you can always use a EF-s/EF lens especially for telephoto.
A new M body would be welcomed.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 3, 2022)

JasonL said:


> Canon knows that an R7 built with the same weather sealing and robustness of the 7D2 will be a huge winner. Not with folks attaching a kit 18-55 lens. With amateur wildlife and sports photographers that cannot afford $20K of flagship level bodies and long L glass.


Maybe but unlikely. Canon would like you to buy USD20k of big whites of course.

I think that a lot of wildlife togs have moved to R5/R6 simply due to the lack of 7Dii replacement and the fps/focus abilities of the R5/6. 
RF100-500 (+TCs), RF600/800/f11 have provided a telephoto solution for people who can't afford big whites.... or kept their EF100-400mm + TCs.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 3, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I agree. With the "R5s", you would get the best of both worlds - all the light from the lens and all the detail the lens can deliver - in the same shot. If you are somehow data limited, just flip the switch to crop mode . Many of the R7 speculators look at R6 pricing and then wish for an R3 style sensor and R5 features without understanding the cost implications.


One issue with the mythical R5s would be the fps. It is unlikely to be 20fps eShutter/ 14fps mechanical which is what R7 users would be asking for.... unless it is possible that Canon will be able to increase the frame rate just for crop mode.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.


I think that a lot of wildlife togs have moved to R5/R6 simply due to the lack of 7Dii replacement (almost 8 years now) and the fps/focus abilities of the R5/6.
The eye AF is simply amazing and nailing the focus is more important than having more pixels on subject. 
The tools for up-resolution are vastly improved from the past - IMHO negating the benefits of optical "reach"

RF100-500 (+TCs), RF600/800/f11 have provided a telephoto solution for people who can't afford big whites.... or adapted their EF100-400mm + TCs.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Given Canon has discontinued some EF lenses, it is unlikely that they will release a new EF lens in the future. RF needs more lenses and Canon wants users to migrate as soon as possible. Note that RF lenses offer something additional to their EF counterparts to justify their higher price in most cases eg weight/size/aperture/focus speed/magnification/focal length etc. If we combine RF and EF, there is an amazing range of lenses available.
> 
> Is there a need for a new M lens? They seem to have a complete system and you can always use a EF-s/EF lens especially for telephoto.
> A new M body would be welcomed.


A light and compact 100-400 would be welcomed by many M users. The light EF alternatives kind of end at 300mm and the Tamron 18-400 doesn't like M cameras much (i.e. Tamron won't even try to make the AF work correctly for an M body), plus it is on the heavy side. Other than that, yes a replacement for the M5 would be nice, but I suspect the technology is not quite there yet to fit some of the new processor features into the M power envelope. The fact that the M6 II didn't include the nice downscaling 4k crop mode video feature of the 90D was likely due to power limitations. Clearly, the AF and video features of the R5 and R6 (i.e. digic x) are pretty power hungry, so maybe we are just in a bit too much of a hurry. Only time will tell. BTW, since it uses the same battery, a more competent replacement for the RP suffers from the same power limitations as the M cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2022)

Dragon said:


> A light and compact 100-400 would be welcomed by many M users.


A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).


----------



## JasonL (May 3, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Maybe but unlikely. Canon would like you to buy USD20k of big whites of course.
> 
> I think that a lot of wildlife togs have moved to R5/R6 simply due to the lack of 7Dii replacement and the fps/focus abilities of the R5/6.
> RF100-500 (+TCs), RF600/800/f11 have provided a telephoto solution for people who can't afford big whites.... or kept their EF100-400mm + TCs.


Good point. I would just add that the R7 we're hoping for would fall in between the R6 and R5 so essentially its the R5 versus the R7. If the R7 is equivalent in build quality to the 7D2 I would guess the R7 comes in around $2800 which would hopefully put the build quality equal to the R5, but a moderate step below the price of the R5. Go ahead and cripple the video in the R7. The target audience wouldn't really care lol.


----------



## Otara (May 3, 2022)

JasonL said:


> Good point. I would just add that the R7 we're hoping for would fall in between the R6 and R5 so essentially its the R5 versus the R7. If the R7 is equivalent in build quality to the 7D2 I would guess the R7 comes in around $2800 which would hopefully put the build quality equal to the R5, but a moderate step below the price of the R5. Go ahead and cripple the video in the R7. The target audience wouldn't really care lol.


I would. This is the problem with that camera, make it too narrow in features and the available customer group shrinks, too large and it starts competing with others.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2022)

JasonL said:


> The target audience wouldn't really care lol.


Lol. First you claim to know what Canon knows, now you claim to know what others want. News flash – you don't.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).


That would be sweet. I would instantly preorder it. The AF at 7.1 might be a little dodgy on the M and M2, but should be OK on all the rest.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.


There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828

I've copied the relevant information below:

"Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"


----------



## lote82 (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).


Technically possible, but would it also be economically wise?

The market is shrinking. Developing a long tele (which is not long enough) for a second mount, while good/better teles already exist in another mount, is quite odd!

As already mentioned, there is already a Tamron 18-400mm. Why isn't it available for EF-M? Maybe because Tamron doesn't see a market for this in M-system...


----------



## lote82 (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.





LogicExtremist said:


> There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828
> 
> I've copied the relevant information below:
> 
> "Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"


Regarding to this chart the "wildlife" market is indeed very small. It's so small, it doesn't even exist! 

You obviously think wildlife is only about animals. If you ask me it's rather a mixture of animals, landscape and traveling.
It's not only about animals. It's about "animals" in their natural habitat ("landscape") which you can only find when "traveling".

An assumed R7 would be perfect for this (and even more)!


----------



## Kit. (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.)


To those who can afford these trips, Canon will gladly sell an R5.


----------



## lote82 (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.


Good point!

A wildlife camera like the assumed R7 would also be very useful for traveling. Photographing is expensive, but traveling even more. Some of us have to decide if it's better to spend the money in rather expensive FF cameras and lenses or in expensive trips. Furthermore it’s always pain in the ass if gear gets lost/broken/stolen… Expensive gear even more. 

Nearly forgotten … I’m not willing to pay slaves carrying my luggage (with heavy and expensive photo gear) around. Too expensive and morally questionable!

Not sure, but I think there is still a market for non-millionaires.


----------



## Otara (May 3, 2022)

There is - and at the moment from Canons perspective, that market is covered by DSLR's and EF-M. Whats left over is what we're waiting to see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828


How dare you bring data to an opinion fight. I say, how dare you, Sir.

At least people are choosing to totally ignore those data or warp them to fit their beliefs. What a relief that people can still live in their bubble where pandemics are a hoax, vaccines and masks are ineffective infringements on personal freedom, and they’re always right.


----------



## reefroamer (May 3, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828
> 
> I've copied the relevant information below:
> 
> "Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"


This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.


You beat me to it. The number of professional photographers is miniscule compared to the number of amateurs, and the photographic genres and motivations of amateurs will be completely different, e.g. it's highly unlikely that "weddings" or "portraits" would be at the top of the list.

I'd *guess* that the most popular subjects with amateurs would be, in descending order:

Selfies
Family
Travel
Landscape
Animals
Sports
Portrait
Food
Wedding

... and how many amateurs photograph "fashion"?


----------



## lote82 (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> How dare you bring data to an opinion fight. I say, how dare you, Sir.
> 
> At least people are choosing to totally ignore those data or warp them to fit their beliefs. What a relief that people can still live in their bubble where pandemics are a hoax, vaccines and masks are ineffective infringements on personal freedom, and they’re always right.


Who ignored it? 
As already stated (not only by me!) this data says nothing about non-professionals and nothing about wildlife (this term is not even mentioned in the charts!)
It's only useful as proof for your arrogance and ignorance!


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

To everyone:

For every set of statistics, there will be another set of statistics that directly contradicts it...

Just choose the one that best suits your own viewpoint!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.


My bad, I did not dig deeper than the surface. 

Amateurs do comprise a much larger market. The real question is what fraction of that market would buy a 7-series camera? We can speculate all we want about that, but Canon has the data. And with those data available to them, they chose to launch just two such bodies in well over a decade.


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The real question is what fraction of that market would buy a 7-series camera?


One could ask the same questions about lenses such as the RF 600mm F4 or other specialist products.
What fraction of the market buys such lenses?

The real question is whether a product will sell in enough numbers to generate a worthwhile profit.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 3, 2022)

mpb001 said:


> I really don’t understand why Canon has decided to go with a crop sensor mirrorless camera and make RFS lenses. It seems like a bad move and will use resources for other products. The reason I say this is full frame camera prices are lowering all of the time. The RP can be bought for under $1000 and eventually we will probably see $500 full frame cameras.


Many photographers and enthusiasts appear to regard FF as the holy grail of camera design. There's more to it than simply cost alone. Reach and camera/lens size come into the crop sensor debate too.

That said, smartphones are rapidly catching up in places where compact cameras shine. Perhaps it won't be long before smartphones become a viable alternative to a crop sensor and FF is the better option for most professionals and enthusiasts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2022)

Canon announces development of the EOS R-CR​
Melville, NY — Canon, a global leader in imaging products, today announces the development of the EOS R-CR. This revolutionary camera is tailored to meet the specific needs of CanonRumors forum members. Featuring a newly developed high-resolution, backside-illuminated, stacked APS-C sensor with 50 megapixels, an autofocus system later to be seen in the EOS R1, and capturing 40 frames per second, this camera is designed to satisfy the totally realistic desires of the CR forum membership. “One forum member posted that there were hundreds of thousands of people who would buy this camera, so we know there is a strong market for it,“ said Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai.

Pricing for the EOS R-CR will be determined by a poll to be posted soon on the forum, and availability is expected on the sixth Tuesday in September of this year.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> One could ask the same questions about lenses such as the RF 600mm F4 or other specialist products.
> What fraction of the market buys such lenses?
> 
> The real question is whether a product will sell in enough numbers to generate a worthwhile profit.


Or whether the Return On Investment for a product is likely to be greater than for the alternative ways of investing that money. The important question is: What are the alternatives?


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon announces development of the EOS R-CR​
> Melville, NY — Canon, a global leader in imaging products, today announces the development of the EOS R-CR. This revolutionary camera is tailored to meet the specific needs of CanonRumors forum members. Featuring a newly developed high-resolution, backside-illuminated, stacked APS-C sensor with 50 megapixels, an autofocus system later to be seen in the EOS R1, and capturing 40 frames per second, this camera is designed to satisfy the totally realistic desires of the CR forum membership. “One forum member posted that there were hundreds of thousands of people who would buy this camera, so we know there is a strong market for it,“ said Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai.
> 
> Pricing for the EOS R-CR will be determined by a poll to be posted soon on the forum, and availability is expected on the sixth Tuesday in September of this year.


I don't think anyone seriously considers that their personal "dream camera" will ever become reality. The point that some data-favouring folk miss, is that it's actually *FUN* to speculate and dream up wish-lists. In fact that seems to be the main thrust of the comments section.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII?
> 
> Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.


Maybe the 7DII was selling away fine and Canon didn’t feel the need to upgrade it with mirrorless on the horizon. Maybe it was a cash cow that kept on selling with no effort required on Canons part. Not sure if there are any sales facts on it. Maybe I know too many wildlife photographers / sports photographers (subset genres) but I know a good few people who own it . I have one myself, not a brilliant camera but is a tough workhorse.


----------



## JasonL (May 3, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828
> 
> I've copied the relevant information below:
> 
> "Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"



So looking at your data, Sports is pretty much even with Animal, though Canon designs and produces flagship cameras for Sports? Just think of the R7 as the flagship for amateur sports and wildlife shooters.


----------



## unfocused (May 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think anyone seriously considers that their personal "dream camera" will ever become reality. The point that some data-favouring folk miss, is that it's actually *FUN* to speculate and dream up wish-lists. In fact that seems to be the main thrust of the comments section.


Yes. But I admit it's also fun to debate the pros and cons and to poke holes in arguments on either side. I enjoy these exchanges with you because you seem to actually read and respond to the arguments with your own logic. That's enjoyable even if it can be a little too easy at times to get wrapped up in the debate. What's amusing, but not particularly enjoyable, are those who feel the need to "win" every argument. I sometimes imagine what a living hell it must be to live with or work with those people and I am extremely grateful that I don't have to do either one.


----------



## Franklyok (May 3, 2022)

It would makes sense for video, cropped "super 35". 

Hopefully the lens goes "into mount" so it would make RF-mount compact. 

If normally flange distance is 20 mm, then hopefully they makes , in RF-S case lens could be inserted into "mount pipe", with flange distance 5 - 10 mm.


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Yes. But I admit it's also fun to debate the pros and cons and to poke holes in arguments on either side. I enjoy these exchanges with you because you seem to actually read and respond to the arguments with your own logic. That's enjoyable even if it can be a little too easy at times to get wrapped up in the debate. What's amusing, but not particularly enjoyable, are those who feel the need to "win" every argument. I sometimes imagine what a living hell it must be to live with or work with those people and I am extremely grateful that I don't have to do either one.


Thank you. "Winning" an argument or proving someone else wrong does seem to be what stimulates one or two prolific commenters to participate. It's particularly unfortunate because those people otherwise have a lot to offer, as they are intelligent and knowledgeable folk. But they just can't resist becoming arrogant or rude to people with less knowledge or different opinions.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Technically possible, but would it also be economically wise?
> 
> The market is shrinking. Developing a long tele (which is not long enough) for a second mount, while good/better teles already exist in another mount, is quite odd!
> 
> As already mentioned, there is already a Tamron 18-400mm. Why isn't it available for EF-M? Maybe because Tamron doesn't see a market for this in M-system...


Yes, Tamron has an 18-400 (I have one) but is pretty chunky relative to the M system. It also doesn't focus accurately beyond about 200mm (on any camera body), so you have to switch to manual focus to get a sharp shot. Kind of sad, as the optics are actually very decent, particularly for something with that much zoom range. I tweaked Tameron and they offered to tune the lens to focus correctly on my R5, but flatly said M cameras are unsupported. Kind of interesting, given that they make an 18-200 specifically for M cameras (and the focus issue also exists with EF bodies). I still use the 18-400 with the M5 and M6 II as it is the smallest 400mm around, but the MF issue is annoying, and the lens still is not as svelte as canon could make a 100-400 by a wide margin. Given the huge number of M50s in the wild, I think such a lens would be a decent seller.


----------



## lote82 (May 3, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Yes, Tamron has an 18-400 (I have one) but is pretty chunky relative to the M system. It also doesn't focus accurately beyond about 200mm (on any camera body), so you have to switch to manual focus to get a sharp shot. Kind of sad, as the optics are actually very decent, particularly for something with that much zoom range. I tweaked Tameron and they offered to tune the lens to focus correctly on my R5, but flatly said M cameras are unsupported. Kind of interesting, given that they make an 18-200 specifically for M cameras (and the focus issue also exists with EF bodies). I still use the 18-400 with the M5 and M6 II as it is the smallest 400mm around, but the MF issue is annoying, and the lens still is not as svelte as canon could make a 100-400 by a wide margin. Given the huge number of M50s in the wild, I think such a lens would be a decent seller.


Very interesting! I always thought every L-lens user is already spoiled by ultimate image quality and will therefore hate such super-zooms!
I have the Tamron EF 16-300mm for quite a long time and used it extensively. Still like it very much, but since having the Canon EF 15-85mm it's not a favourite anymore. I also think such a lens would sell very well in M system. But as I stated, not offering one is maybe not a good omen for the system... 
What do you think of the overall image quality? Is it usable at 400mm? The 16-300 is surprisingly sharp at some focal lengths (for ex. 16mm). But quite weak at 300mm (with F8 acceptable).


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Very interesting! I always thought every L-lens user is already spoiled by ultimate image quality and will therefore hate such super-zooms!
> I have the Tamron EF 16-300mm for quite a long time and used it extensively. Still like it very much, but since having the Canon EF 15-85mm it's not a favourite anymore. I also think such a lens would sell very well in M system. But as I stated, not offering one is maybe not a good omen for the system...
> What do you think of the overall image quality? Is it usable at 400mm? The 16-300 is surprisingly sharp at some focal lengths (for ex. 16mm). But quite weak at 300mm (with F8 acceptable).


The 18-400 is quite sharp at 400mm if carefully focused. The attached files are sample 100% crops. The first one (label) is on the M6 II (manually focused) with a Kenko 2x TC (i.e. 800mm at 80 MP FF equiv) and default LR sharpening. The second (boat) is bare lens autofocused at 400mm on an M5 with a little help from Topaz Sharpen. The AF is not terrible (at least if you do enough tweaking on Tap In console), but it is always just a little off at the long end and when accurately focused, the glass is very good (particularly in the center). There is substantial CA in periphery, so the sides and corners are fairly soft, but that part of the lens is not used with a TC so the TC performance is quite good. It doesn't compete with the EF 100-400 II, but it is not all that far off, at least in the center, and it is much smaller and lighter (but still not nearly as small and light as Canon could make a 100-400 M lens). That is the news on my copy. YMMV. BTW, I have an EF 800L f/5.6 and also and RF 800 f/11. Again, the L wins the IQ battle, but not by all that much and the portability difference is huge. L lenses have excellent quality, but they are not always practical to lug to the destination and thus the attractiveness of the M system.


----------



## entoman (May 3, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The 18-400 is quite sharp at 400mm if carefully focused.


I've got no experience with this lens, but it seems odd that it apparently focuses accurately at short focal lengths, but poorly at long focal lengths.

Could it be that it does actually focus poorly at *all* focal lengths, but that the deeper d.o.f. at shorter focal lengths is enough to cover the error?

MILCs are supposed to achieve accurate focus with all lenses. I'd guess that any error that creeps in is either due to the focus-motors continuing to operate *after* focus has been achieved; or is due to lag in the signal between the camera body and the lens circuitry.


----------



## Dragon (May 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> I've got no experience with this lens, but it seems odd that it apparently focuses accurately at short focal lengths, but poorly at long focal lengths.
> 
> Could it be that it does actually focus poorly at *all* focal lengths, but that the deeper d.o.f. at shorter focal lengths is enough to cover the error?
> 
> MILCs are supposed to achieve accurate focus with all lenses. I'd guess that any error that creeps in is either due to the focus-motors continuing to operate *after* focus has been achieved; or is due to lag in the signal between the camera body and the lens circuitry.


No, it focuses accurately up to about 200mm and then it reliably focuses a little beyond the subject no matter whether the camera is SLR or Mirrorless. It never was really right and initially required a lot of tweaking on the Tap In console to get it right with an SLR, but after a firmware upgrade, there is just no getting it on the money. At this point, I use it only on the M cameras and just manually focus it for the long end. The manual focus is a little stiff at the long end and that may be the source of the issue if the motors don't have enough torque. When Tamron said they didn't support the M cameras with the lens and wanted a camera body to tune it to for any supported camera, I gave up the quest since the focus inaccuracy is pretty much the same independent of body or camera type. The issue may be only with my lens, but I have a suspicion that Tamron would say the AF is in spec as it is close, but not cigar. Too bad, because the glass itself is very good for a lens of this type. Another copy may well produce different results, but I don't love it enough to buy another copy to see and further, another copy may not be as sharp as this one no matter how it is focused  . Actually, there is one exception where it does seem to focus correctly (no matter how it is tweaked on the Tap In) and that is the 5 DSR in live view, which uses contrast detection and keeps nudging the focus until it is peaked. DPAF seems to work more like SLR focus in that it measures the error and tells the lens where to go, but doesn't go beyond the focus point and hunt back and forth to peak the focus like contrast detect does. DPAF is more accurate than SLR, because there is no opportunity for error between measurement and the sensor, but it still seems to be sensitive to lenses not doing what they are told. Lenses designed for SLR work fine on DPAF, but many of them are very unhappy with contrast detect, because they are not designed for the incremental tweaking that is involved. At least that is my observation.


----------



## TonyPM (May 3, 2022)

Canon desperately needs an RF Rebel! 
Good Af, stabilisation, good APSC image quality, without going overboard with the price.

In the last years of the efs mount canon came up with some pretty nice lenses for it.

They should think about that.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 4, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> That said, smartphones are rapidly catching up in places where compact cameras shine. Perhaps it won't be long before smartphones become a viable alternative to a crop sensor and FF is the better option for most professionals and enthusiasts.


Smartphones are already a viable alternative to the detriment of the compact camera segment. I personally only use my R5/lenses where using my smartphone wouldn't get acceptable shots given their computational photographic algorithms. Canon are happy with the M product line but focusing (boom tish) on FF/R mount for long term profitability and selling more RF lenses


----------



## David - Sydney (May 4, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Maybe the 7DII was selling away fine and Canon didn’t feel the need to upgrade it with mirrorless on the horizon. Maybe it was a cash cow that kept on selling with no effort required on Canons part. Not sure if there are any sales facts on it. Maybe I know too many wildlife photographers / sports photographers (subset genres) but I know a good few people who own it . I have one myself, not a brilliant camera but is a tough workhorse.


I am sure that the 7Dii did have a cash cow period of time but then went into decline. It is still available for sale as a kit at B&H "Canon EOS 7D DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Kit" but discontinued everywhere else I could see. Perhaps B&H still have some stock in their warehouse to get rid of.
Canon would have their sales figures but no one else besides the retailers. Only BCN publishes that data from about half of the Japanese retailers.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> You beat me to it. The number of professional photographers is miniscule compared to the number of amateurs, and the photographic genres and motivations of amateurs will be completely different, e.g. it's highly unlikely that "weddings" or "portraits" would be at the top of the list.
> 
> I'd *guess* that the most popular subjects with amateurs would be, in descending order:
> 
> ...



I would suggest for amateur togs....
Selfies - 99% would be via smartphone now. Although I have taken a 16mm selfie with my R5 with articulated screen out - it wasn't great. Crop sensor for reach would be unlikely 
Family - Majority by smartphone but prosumers shooting family events for sure
Travel - I see a mix... smartphones for sure but some prosumers. For me, the difference would be a "record shot" vs a creative shot
Landscape - definitely a category for prosumers including seascape, waterfalls and cityscapes
Animals - zoos and wildlife for prosumers
Sports - prosumers for indoor sports and telephoto shots of kids sports would be a larger segment of prosumers as smartphones aren't great in low light/telephoto
Portrait - informal portraits (including fashion?) are mostly by smartphone but certainly some prosumers are doing portrait shoots
Food - instagrammers use smartphones. Professional togs for sure. Is there much food photography by prosumers?
Wedding - prosumers doing freebies but most couples would spring for a professional if they could afford it. Secondary prosumers or specific parts of the wedding eg reception for sure

I'd also add
- Architecture (not real estate)
- Macro (wildlife and other), astro (deep and wide angle plus events like eclipses) for prosumer togs towards to bottom
- Specialty niches of urban decay and trains/ planes/ automobiles


----------



## Otara (May 4, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am sure that the 7Dii did have a cash cow period of time but then went into decline. It is still available for sale as a kit at B&H "Canon EOS 7D DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Kit" but discontinued everywhere else I could see. Perhaps B&H still have some stock in their warehouse to get rid of.
> Canon would have their sales figures but no one else besides the retailers. Only BCN publishes that data from about half of the Japanese retailers.



Im not as sure, I think it did OK but not as well as the 7D. Which is why we didnt see the III and why we havent seen Canon release a true equivalent to the 150-600mm zooms. They were popularish 'budget' options but not profitable enough they thought they needed to go into that price area.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

Otara said:


> Im not as sure, I think it did OK but not as well as the 7D. Which is why we didnt see the III and why we havent seen Canon release a true equivalent to the 150-600mm zooms. They were popularish 'budget' options but not profitable enough they thought they needed to go into that price area.


150-600 is indeed a very useful zoomrange. Very good not only for wildlife but also for near-macro and landscape shots (and portrait). There are quite a lot of options by other manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma). Maybe Canon was just too late developing one and now the market is saturated. I have the Sigma 150-600mm Cont. and use it only on 7D II. So I don't know how it performs on FF. All I can say (for APS-C) it's a fantastic lens which I highly recommend. Towards 600mm it gets a bit softer but still good (stopped down very good). It's also quite sharp in the corners (on APS-C).


----------



## okaro (May 4, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> If they only plan to release the R7 as APS-C then there wouldn't be much point in making RF-S lenses as the 7 series is aimed at professional telephoto wildlife and sports. I can only see the RF-S lens happening if they replace the M series with RF equivalents. Or they could make lenses with a APS-C image circle and label it as RF but that would be confusing for the rumored entry level RF full frame bodies.


People do not buy cameras for single use only. Even if they are interested mainly on wildlife or sports photography they generally also want to do general photography and they need lenses for that full frame lenses in general are too heavy and expensive. Now 16 mm is basically only practical affordable general purpose lens that works with APS-C.

Also R7 is not intended to be a professional camera but something for a serious hobby photographer like 7D was. Professionals will want a full frame camera.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 4, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Smartphones are already a viable alternative to the detriment of the compact camera segment. I personally only use my R5/lenses where using my smartphone wouldn't get acceptable shots given their computational photographic algorithms. Canon are happy with the M product line but focusing (boom tish) on FF/R mount for long term profitability and selling more RF lenses



My bad, I should have worded and clarified that better. I'm quite aware that smartphones have pretty much replaced the traditional small sensor point and shoot and compact superzoom consumer market cameras. What I meant to say was the higher end of the "compact" market, such as large sensor fixed prime cameras like the Fuji X100 series, or other higher-end compact zooms such as the Canon G1Xmkiii or Sony RX100 series.

I don't think smartphones are quite there yet. But technology is advancing at an incredible rate in this sector with computational algorithms and periscopic zoom lenses. I wonder how long the high end fixed lens market will last.

FWIW, I remember when I started working for Canon Business Service around 10 years ago, we were told in a briefing back then that consumer compacts were a dead market because of smartphones, but they needed to keep making them as there was still enough of market share of people who still wanted them. I'm quite surprised they didn't team up with a phone manufacturer to develop phone camera technology. They must have thought it an area not worth pursuing.


----------



## entoman (May 4, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I would suggest for amateur togs....
> Selfies - 99% would be via smartphone now. Although I have taken a 16mm selfie with my R5 with articulated screen out - it wasn't great. Crop sensor for reach would be unlikely
> Family - Majority by smartphone but prosumers shooting family events for sure
> Travel - I see a mix... smartphones for sure but some prosumers. For me, the difference would be a "record shot" vs a creative shot
> ...


Sorry, I have to cringe when I hear photographers referred to as "togs" 

I agree with your list though.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

okaro said:


> People do not buy cameras for single use only. Even if they are interested mainly on wildlife or sports photography they generally also want to do general photography and they need lenses for that full frame lenses in general are too heavy and expensive. Now 16 mm is basically only practical affordable general purpose lens that works with APS-C.


Fully agree


okaro said:


> Also R7 is not intended to be a professional camera but something for a serious hobby photographer like 7D was. Professionals will want a full frame camera.


The 7D was a camera (also) for professionals. If the assumed R7 is really the follower of the 7D then it will (also) be for professionals. You are probably right that most professionals choose FF over APS-C. But thats because most of professionals are wedding, portrait, fashion photographers and not wildlife photographers.


----------



## Otara (May 4, 2022)

lote82 said:


> 150-600 is indeed a very useful zoomrange. Very good not only for wildlife but also for near-macro and landscape shots (and portrait). There are quite a lot of options by other manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma). Maybe Canon was just too late developing one and now the market is saturated. I have the Sigma 150-600mm Cont. and use it only on 7D II. So I don't know how it performs on FF. All I can say (for APS-C) it's a fantastic lens which I highly recommend. Towards 600mm it gets a bit softer but still good (stopped down very good). It's also quite sharp in the corners (on APS-C).


I had the original Tamron, which couldnt use the dock and stopped working properly with my 80D. Canon has a principle of stopping at 5.6 for DSLR, so that was one problem initially.

It has been interesting to see them not go after the same area as Sony and Nikon did with the cheaper long zooms. If the market is 'saturated', it suggests its not really very large - all very similar to the argument for wildlife APS-C in my view - they've chosen to stay in the more expensive/higher end area.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

Otara said:


> It has been interesting to see them not go after the same area as Sony and Nikon did with the cheaper long zooms. If the market is 'saturated', it suggests its not really very large - all very similar to the argument for wildlife APS-C in my view - they've chosen to stay in the more expensive/higher end area.


I wouldn't say the Canon 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses are expensive and/or highend. Never used one of these but I'm quite sure I wouldn't (even if I could) choose them over the 150-600mm f5-6,3. I also think (and hope) an assumed R7 would be highend and therefore expensive. I don't know why smaller sensor automatically means cheap/lowend...


----------



## roby17269 (May 4, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> My bad, I should have worded and clarified that better. I'm quite aware that smartphones have pretty much replaced the traditional small sensor point and shoot and compact superzoom consumer market cameras. What I meant to say was the higher end of the "compact" market, such as large sensor fixed prime cameras like the Fuji X100 series, or other higher-end compact zooms such as the Canon G1Xmkiii or Sony RX100 series.
> 
> I don't think smartphones are quite there yet. But technology is advancing at an incredible rate in this sector with computational algorithms and periscopic zoom lenses. I wonder how long the high end fixed lens market will last.


My Samsung phone has 4 cameras that cover a range from 13mm to 240mm in 35mm equiv.
That's almost superzoom territory. Now I have tried and know that the 240mm camera is really, really bad. To the point where I would not use it at all. And the rest of the range is not great as well. But I also know I am a niche user who's willing to spend on big cameras and lenses and time and effort to get a better result.
Many more people don't care enough to put in the resources and effort and time required to improve their photos and to share them.

We (as in people on this and similar fora) know very well that phones are not there yet. Even the best camera phone output in the best circumstances crumbles down once it leaves the safe confines of a phone's screen. But obviously this doesn't matter to the vast majority of the buyers and I think that the high-end compact camera and low-end interchangeable camera markets are in deep trouble.



gregedwards69 said:


> FWIW, I remember when I started working for Canon Business Service around 10 years ago, we were told in a briefing back then that consumer compacts were a dead market because of smartphones, but they needed to keep making them as there was still enough of market share of people who still wanted them. I'm quite surprised they didn't team up with a phone manufacturer to develop phone camera technology. They must have thought it an area not worth pursuing.


Various phone manufacturers have teamed up with camera / lens manufacturers, mostly to be able to use historical brand names (such as Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad) on their phones. I assume phone manufacturers would have little interest in helping camera manufacturers making their offerings "smart", as this might affect phone sales adversely.


----------



## entoman (May 4, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I wouldn't say the Canon 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses are expensive and/or highend. Never used one of these but I'm quite sure I wouldn't (even if I could) choose them over the 150-600mm f5-6,3.


The Sigma 150-600mm is more versatile than the fixed focal length lenses, but if I was going to replace my EF 100-400mm I'd choose the Canon RF 100-500mm over the Sigma, despite the big difference in price (sharper, better built, lighter, faster AF).

The 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 are both extremely good lenses, although restricted in usage by the fixed focal lengths and slow apertures. The 800mm in particular is excellent and together with my EF 100-400mm covers all my long focal length needs. The really great thing about the Canon F11 lenses is their light weight, which makes it dead easy to handhold them all day long:

Sigma 150-600mm Sport - 2860g
Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary - 1830g
Canon RF 100-500mm - 1365g
Canon RF 800mm F11 - 1260g
Canon RF 600mm F11 - 930g

The Canon RF 600/11 and 800/11 also have incredibly good image stabilisation - I can handhold my 800/11 at 1/60 and get razor sharp shots about 50% of the time, filling the frame with static subjects (birds perching in trees)..... and I don't have particularly steady hands.

For larger wildlife (e.g. on safari) or BIF, I'd recommend RF 100-500mm if you can afford it, or a secondhand EF 100-400mm if money is tighter.
For waders and birds on the ground or in bushes/trees, I'd recommend RF 800mm F11


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 4, 2022)

JasonL said:


> So looking at your data, Sports is pretty much even with Animal, though Canon designs and produces flagship cameras for Sports? Just think of the R7 as the flagship for amateur sports and wildlife shooters.


Well, to be a bit more precise, Canon produces flagship cameras with fast shutter speeds for fast moving ACTION, which does cover sports, wildlife and many other genres where the subjects are not static, but are moving.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2022)

entoman said:


> The Sigma 150-600mm is more versatile than the fixed focal length lenses, but if I was going to replace my EF 100-400mm I'd choose the Canon RF 100-500mm over the Sigma, despite the big difference in price (sharper, better built, lighter, faster AF).


Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory). 

The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400. 

The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).
> 
> The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.
> 
> The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.


... and having 100mm more on the long side (while having 50mm more on the short side) and being a bit faster on the long side (while being a bit slower on the short side)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2022)

lote82 said:


> ... and having 100mm more on the long side (while having 50mm more on the short side) and being a bit faster on the long side (while being a bit slower on the short side)


You either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to comprehend it. Enjoy your useless extra 100-200mm.

Edit: I should not have bothered posting a reply. I forgot my Mark Twain, "Never argue with an idiot. You'll never convince the idiot that you're correct, and bystanders won't be able to tell who's who." I won't make that mistake again.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm.


So it should be easy to show *serious data* for this wacky statement? 


neuroanatomist said:


> You either didn't read what I wrote, or failed to comprehend it. Enjoy your useless extra 100mm.


Enjoy your useless M system as long as it's supported!


----------



## Dragon (May 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).
> 
> The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.
> 
> The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.


Yep, and if you put a 1.4 extender on the 100-400, you get your pixels back and it still out resolves the 150-600s in a smaller package. A little slower at the long end, but that is no issue on an R5. Also, the AF and IS are in a whole different league from the 150-600s.


----------



## lote82 (May 4, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Yep, and if you put a 1.4 extender on the 100-400, you get your pixels back and it still out resolves the 150-600s in a smaller package. A little slower at the long end, but that is no issue on an R5. Also, the AF and IS are in a whole different league from the 15-600s.








Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test - Traumflieger.de


Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test: Ausstattung - Test im Wildgehege - Astrotest am Mond - Auflösung im Labor - Autofokus und Bildstabilisator - USB-Dock - Nahbereich - Handhabung - Technische Daten - Fazit - kaufen ja oder nein? - welches Stativ kaufen? -...




www.traumflieger.de





It's german but a serious source:

Quote:
_Buy if you already own a Canon 100-400mm L?

The Canon 100-400mm L Mark I or Canon 100-400mm L Mark II does not come close to the 600mm of the Sigma with a maximum of 400mm. The difference is clearly visible in many motifs. If you upgrade the Canon with a 1.4x teleconverter, the image results will be similar, but the aperture will be lacking. This means that the AF is usually slower if it is supported by the camera at all. However, the TK solution should be sufficient for subjects that allow sufficient time and where you can focus manually. In this respect, we cannot answer unequivocally with yes or no._

A draw for a lens which is much cheaper (not to mention the additional TC) is impressive. The Canon is not "out resolving" and (with TC) the AF is definetly not better (rather worse)!


----------



## entoman (May 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).
> 
> The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.
> 
> The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.


Yep, I'm happy with my EF 100-400mm ii for large subjects such as mammals and reptiles on safari, and equally happy with my RF 800mm F11 for non-BIF bird photography. In an ideal world I'd have a 100-800mm but that ain't gonna happen...

The RF 100-500mm is I'm sure a stunning lens, and I'll likely give in to temptation and get one before my next safari, but as with many RF lenses (e.g. 100mm macro) I have doubts about whether the results would be better (than EF) by an amount significant enough to justify the expense - particularly as the cost of the 100-500mm is about equivalent to having an extra 10 days on safari.


----------



## Czardoom (May 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Testing by multiple sites as well as by some forum members here has shown that the EF 100-400 II at 400mm with cropping delivers better resolution than the various 3rd party 150-600mm zooms at 600mm. An image from the long end of a 150-600mm zoom will have more MP than the 400mm image cropped to the same framing, but those extra MP are empty magnification (a concept from microscopy that applies here, hopefuly self-explanatory).
> 
> The RF 100-500 is out-resolves the EF 100-400 II and gives an extra 100mm, so it’s an even better option on an R body than an adapted 100-400.
> 
> The 150-600 zooms have the sole advantage of being cheaper.


I never used the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma or Tamron, but I have had two copies of the Sigma 100-400mm, and both were quite soft at 400mm. While not a scientific test, I did compare my Sigmas with my EF 70-300mm non-L Canon lens, and the Canon lens shot at 300mm and cropped to the same FOV, out-resolved the Sigma at 400mm. So, while forum users seem so hung up on specs and numbers, sometimes things are not as you would expect. There's no question in my mind that the Canon RF 100-500 is a vastly superior lens than any of the 150-600mm lenses that are out there. Sometimes 500 is a higher number than 600!


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2022)

entoman said:


> Sorry, I have to cringe when I hear photographers referred to as "togs"
> 
> I agree with your list though.


I'm just being lazy in typing  
I guess that basically everyone is now a photographer given the smartphone usage. "togs" being prosumers and professionals.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> Im not as sure, I think it did OK but not as well as the 7D. Which is why we didnt see the III and why we havent seen Canon release a true equivalent to the 150-600mm zooms. They were popularish 'budget' options but not profitable enough they thought they needed to go into that price area.


In "cash cow", I'm referring to the product lifecycle stages of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline where "maturity" generally refers to cash cow status ie R&D costs have been amortized and any startup costs are minimised. Decline being when there are costs associated with discontinuing the product (smaller part quantity/pricing, close up sales discounts etc).

If the 7Dii didn't get to cash cow sales volume then this would be a valid reason for Canon to discontinue it and not replace with a 7Diii. B&H still have the 7Dii and they wouldn't have it for sale if there was a solid demand for it - including replacement of failed 7Dii 's


----------



## Otara (May 5, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> In "cash cow", I'm referring to the product lifecycle stages of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline where "maturity" generally refers to cash cow status ie R&D costs have been amortized and any startup costs are minimised. Decline being when there are costs associated with discontinuing the product (smaller part quantity/pricing, close up sales discounts etc).
> 
> If the 7Dii didn't get to cash cow sales volume then this would be a valid reason for Canon to discontinue it and not replace with a 7Diii. B&H still have the 7Dii and they wouldn't have it for sale if there was a solid demand for it - including replacement of failed 7Dii 's



Its listed as no longer available at BH.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> Its listed as no longer available at BH.


Really? Canon EOS 7D DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Kit @ USD1694
Yes, the 7Dii body only has been discontinued but if someone really wants/needs a 7D then the cost of the kit lens would be negligible
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680674-GREY/Canon_3814B016_EOS_7D_Digital_SLR.html


----------



## Otara (May 5, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Really? Canon EOS 7D DSLR Camera with 18-135mm Kit @ USD1694
> Yes, the 7Dii body only has been discontinued but if someone really wants/needs a 7D then the cost of the kit lens would be negligible
> https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680674-GREY/Canon_3814B016_EOS_7D_Digital_SLR.html


There’s two entries for the 7d, one as discontinued one as not. Given it’s the only entry it might be an oversight, particularly given the 7d II models are all listed as being discontinued. Edit: the one for sale is listed as Bh warranty only so presumably their own stock.


----------



## Dragon (May 5, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test - Traumflieger.de
> 
> 
> Sigma 150 - 600mm / 5 - 6,3 DG OS HSM Contemporary im Test: Ausstattung - Test im Wildgehege - Astrotest am Mond - Auflösung im Labor - Autofokus und Bildstabilisator - USB-Dock - Nahbereich - Handhabung - Technische Daten - Fazit - kaufen ja oder nein? - welches Stativ kaufen? -...
> ...


Given the wording, I think that was written in the day of the DSLR. The R5/R6 change the AF balance in favor of the 100-400 with a 1.4x.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 5, 2022)

Otara said:


> There’s two entries for the 7d, one as discontinued one as not. Given it’s the only entry it might be an oversight, particularly given the 7d II models are all listed as being discontinued. Edit: the one for sale is listed as Bh warranty only so presumably their own stock.


I agree. Probably only B&H excess stock. Being still available is saying something though


----------



## lote82 (May 5, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Given the wording, I think that was written in the day of the DSLR. The R5/R6 change the AF balance in favor of the 100-400 with a 1.4x.


It was indeed ...
It's possible that AF will perform better on R5 (compared to which DSLR?). But it's also possible (and likely) that if AF will improve on R5, it will also improve AF of the Sigma. Both lenses are adapted therefore I don't see any hint why the Canon would perform better than the Sigma. It's just speculation. You don't know, and I don't know.


----------



## lote82 (May 5, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I never used the 150-600mm lenses from Sigma or Tamron, but I have had two copies of the Sigma 100-400mm, and both were quite soft at 400mm. While not a scientific test, I did compare my Sigmas with my EF 70-300mm non-L Canon lens, and the Canon lens shot at 300mm and cropped to the same FOV, out-resolved the Sigma at 400mm. So, while forum users seem so hung up on specs and numbers, sometimes things are not as you would expect. There's no question in my mind that the Canon RF 100-500 is a vastly superior lens than any of the 150-600mm lenses that are out there. Sometimes 500 is a higher number than 600!


It's more than 3 times the price of the Sigma and also a native (is this term right?) lens. Would be a shame if it wouldn't perform better. The question is: Does the better performance justify the huge price difference? I don't know. I tried to figure it out, but didn't find any serious information about a comparison. If you find, feel free to tell me ... Thank you!


----------



## masterpix (May 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you'd advise Toyota to stop making the Camry to eliminate a production line? Lol. I hope you don't actually run a business, unless it's a sole proprietorship where your decisions only affect you.


Well, as you well aware of, many car manufactures use the same platform for many cars, each with its own different specification and target. I don't see, even Toyota, building two different cars targeting the exact same market spot. The cars that Toyota makes, share many components between them, to reduce manufacturing and spare parts production reducing the number of assembly lines allows you to be very flexible in your over all manufacturing, you can shift parts from one line to another without cost, thus, address customer needs with short response time.

As a matter of fact, I do run a busyness, and in my production line there are three products, each target different customers and, to your surprise, to reduce costs, they share many parts between them. There is no point in two similar products that just compete for the same market.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 5, 2022)

To add fuel to the fire.









Canon has discontinued the Canon EOS M6 Mark II


We have received reports from two different countries that the Canon EOS M6 Mark II has been discontinued. There will obviously be inventory in various stores a



www.canonrumors.com





This just leaves the M50mkii and M200 in the M stable, both a lower tired camera to the M6mkii. Does it mean the end of the road for M? We don't know. But it does suggest that Canon could be realigning where M sits in the marketplace. Perhaps it will be rebranded as a bloggers/consumer system that want something better than a smartphone but easy to use. Enthusiasts who want a higher end mirrorless camera where the M6mkii sat could be redirected to a potential APSC R system. It does all depend on pricing. I also wonder how many M6mkii users will be willing to reinvest in a new system (assuming RF-S is not EF-M compatible) if they want the latest and greatest.

It could of course also suggest a replacement top tier M camera incoming - perhaps the mythical M5 replacement. But at this point, I really doubt it.

EDIT: I also understand the M50mkii is difficult to purchase in Europe, according to a thread on DPR. This could of course be related to chip shortages. But it's worth considering regarding its future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2022)

masterpix said:


> As a matter of fact, I do run a busyness, and in my production line there are three products, each target different customers and, to your surprise, to reduce costs, they share many parts between them. There is no point in two similar products that just compete for the same market.


Good for you. Feel free to discontinue one of your domestically most popular product lines to save costs. After all, it’s your busyness. 

One production line and three products. It does sound like you run a busyness, not a business. 

Canon’s business is worth >$30B and spans a wide array of industries and product lines. I suspect they know just a little bit more about how to run a business than you do.


----------



## lote82 (May 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon’s business is worth >$30B and spans a wide array of industries and product lines. I suspect they know just a little bit more about how to run a business than you do.


But obviously not more than you ... just read the news ... Canon started to abandon M!


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> One production line and three products. It does sound like you run a busyness, not a business.


To be fair, it's not uncommon to produce more than one product on a single production line, especially if they share common elements. It can be more cost-effective to quickly retool for runs of different products than to run 3 completely separate production lines.


----------



## masterpix (May 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good for you. Feel free to discontinue one of your domestically most popular product lines to save costs. After all, it’s your busyness.
> 
> One production line and three products. It does sound like you run a busyness, not a business.
> 
> Canon’s business is worth >$30B and spans a wide array of industries and product lines. I suspect they know just a little bit more about how to run a business than you do.


As a matter of fact, the new insight from Canon is that the stop developing the M line. As they did to the D line and EF glass.

There is one thing to be happy and wish that things we like will continue to be made into the future, than busyness decisions companies are doing despite our own wishes. Did you see the note saying canon abandons the next M series camera? Canon does not follow OUR wishes and our "logic". They sold thousands of EF lenses, if they follow your logic, they won't stop doing so, but they develop mirrorless cameras, with new mount, and from that point they stopped making EF glass, despite my own wish that they will replace, for example, the 50mm f1.4 ... I wished they wold make 32MP 7D mark III, but they didn't, why, cause someone in Canon made the decision FOR CANON. And since an APS-C RF camera is going to happen, the M class which is exactly the same thing, seems, even to Canon, something they should not continue manufacturing. As much as the AE-1 was successful, and for years it was the best selling camera canon ever made, when they change to EOS cameras, and EF glass, they stopped making it. You can continue to argue that the M line was the most selling product, but, according to Canon, the M days are over, as they did to the EF, and FD before. 

Time changes, you can't relay on the past to continue. And as it seems, Canon decided to stop the M series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> To be fair, it's not uncommon to produce more than one product on a single production line, especially if they share common elements. It can be more cost-effective to quickly retool for runs of different products than to run 3 completely separate production lines.


Of course not, but you missed my point. @masterpix stated his business has a production line. One.

Canon has far more lines, and has been engaged in manufacturing for longer than he’s been alive (unless he’s at least an octogenarian).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2022)

masterpix said:


> As a matter of fact, the new insight from Canon is that the stop developing the M line.


Where was that stated? The topic here is that in just two unnamed countries, Canon has supposedly decided to stop selling one camera in the M lineup, and that one camera is the most expensive one in a line targeting the low end of the market. Somehow you decide that means Canon has stopped development of the M line. It is possible that they have, but unlikely. This topic on a rumor site is certainly not evidence that has occurred. 

Seems like your ability to understand facts is on par with your business acumen.


----------



## Dragon (May 5, 2022)

lote82 said:


> It was indeed ...
> It's possible that AF will perform better on R5 (compared to which DSLR?). But it's also possible (and likely) that if AF will improve on R5, it will also improve AF of the Sigma. Both lenses are adapted therefore I don't see any hint why the Canon would perform better than the Sigma. It's just speculation. You don't know, and I don't know.


Well, I have an R5, a Tamron 150-600, a number of other Sigma lenses, and a 100-400 L II. I have observed that the 100-400 AF clearly outperforms the Tammy, and Sigma lenses, in spite of the fact that many have sterling optics, are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to AF. Also, the adaption of the 100-400 on an R5 is on a mechanical adoption. The R5 perfectly executes EF protocol. The 3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered, and as such, none of them "perfectly" understand EF protocol.


----------



## lote82 (May 5, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Well, I have an R5, a Tamron 150-600, a number of other Sigma lenses, and a 100-400 L II. I have observed that the 100-400 AF clearly outperforms the Tammy, and Sigma lenses, in spite of the fact that many have sterling optics, are notoriously inconsistent when it comes to AF. Also, the adaption of the 100-400 on an R5 is on a mechanical adoption. The R5 perfectly executes EF protocol. The 3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered, and as such, none of the "perfectly" understand EF protocol.


You have "other Sigma lenses". Most reviews claim the Sigma @600mm is sharper than the Tamron @600mm. So when the "3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered" it shouldn't make a difference if they are mounted on EF or adapted on RF. Or the other way round: It shouldn't make a difference if the Canon is mounted on EF or adapted on RF.


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> _...The Canon 100-400mm L Mark I or Canon 100-400mm L Mark II does not come close to the 600mm of the Sigma with a maximum of 400mm. The difference is clearly visible in many motifs. If you upgrade the Canon with a 1.4x teleconverter, the image results will be similar, but the aperture will be lacking. This means that the AF is usually slower if it is supported by the camera at all. However, the TK solution should be sufficient for subjects that allow sufficient time and where you can focus manually. In this respect, we cannot answer unequivocally with yes or no..._


When I owned DSLRs, I often used the Sigma Contemporary because it "fooled" my Canons into thinking it was an f5.6 lens, which meant a range of autofocus points. The 100-400 II with a 1.4x teleconverter was read by the camera as an f8 lens and that meant fewer autofocus points. (With the 7DII it meant just a single center point).

Now that I am using mirrorless bodies, that's no longer an issue and I sold my Sigma. Personally, I always found the lens to be sharp and not noticeably different than the 100-400 with a 1.4 converter. But, the 100-500 is much lighter, shorter and easier to handheld, and the 100mm difference is not as significant as 200mm.


----------



## Dragon (May 6, 2022)

lote82 said:


> You have "other Sigma lenses". Most reviews claim the Sigma @600mm is sharper than the Tamron @600mm. So when the "3rd party lenses are all reverse engineered" it shouldn't make a difference if they are mounted on EF or adapted on RF. Or the other way round: It shouldn't make a difference if the Canon is mounted on EF or adapted on RF.


Unfortunately, "shouldn't" is no guarantee. Very often, over the years, many of the Tammy and Sigma lenses have had to be updated to support even new SLR bodies. DPAF is a whole new game and I have several of the older Sigma and Tammy lenses that simply quit when attached to any of the Canon mirrorless cameras (M or R) or SLRs with DPAF in live mode. Some were upgradeable either by console or mail-in, and some were not. One that was is the Tammy 150-600, but without the update (which took over a year to develop) the lens simply did not function on any camera in DPAF mode. So far I haven't encountered any Canon EF lenses that don't work correctly on the mirrorless bodies (albeit one did need an update to perform optimally). The point is that reverse engineering can unwind what protocol is being currently used, but it cant easily (if at all) predict features that were designed in from the outset but never used. Canon, however knows exactly what the intent of the protocol is and occasionally they have had to issue firmware updates to lenses. One that comes to mind is the EF-s 55-250 when attached to an M camera. Canon issued an update that was implementable from the camera, but only when the lens was mounted on an M camera.

And yes, I think the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 is a bit sharper than the Tammy, but still not as sharp as the EF-100-400 II with a 1.4x III tc. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0 The resolution difference isn't huge, but I haven't seen any Sigma lens that can match the AF performance of the 100-400. I am not suggesting the Sigma is "bad" as both the Sigma and the Tammy are very useful lenses. They just don't match the performance of the 100-400 L II in sharpness, AF, IS, or weather sealing, but that shouldn't be a surprise at half the price. Because they have larger objective lenses, they do let in a bit more light and that is critical on an SLR, particularly a lower end one that won't AF at f/8, but that advantage is all but lost on an R or even a current M body.


----------



## JasonL (May 7, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Well, to be a bit more precise, Canon produces flagship cameras with fast shutter speeds for fast moving ACTION, which does cover sports, wildlife and many other genres where the subjects are not static, but are moving.


Indeed. Though you never hear about flagship camera bodies being released in time for a fashion show or an F1 race. It's always the Olympics.


----------



## Czardoom (May 8, 2022)

lote82 said:


> It's more than 3 times the price of the Sigma and also a native (is this term right?) lens. Would be a shame if it wouldn't perform better. The question is: Does the better performance justify the huge price difference? I don't know. I tried to figure it out, but didn't find any serious information about a comparison. If you find, feel free to tell me ... Thank you!


I was referring to the Canon NON-L EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 II lens that sells for $599, not the L lens. The non-L consumer level EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II outperformed (in sharpness) the Sigma 100-400 at 300mm cropped to the same FOV as the Sigma at 400mm, at least in my experience with the 2 Sigma lenses I briefly owned.


----------

