# RF Mount APS-C camera coming second half of 2021 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 1, 2020)

> The on-again, off-again rumors of an APS-C EOS R series camera appear to be back on today.
> A known source has told me that the APS-C RF mount camera was initially slated to be announced in early 2021, but has been pushed back to the second half of 2021.
> It’s obviously too far out to know any sort of reliable specifications, but I was told that it was not going to be an entry-level product, but a higher margin camera built around speed and a smaller footprint than the EOS R5 and EOS R6.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## amorse (Sep 1, 2020)

Very interesting - maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then. I guess the crux of the question here will be whether or not the "higher margin" nature of the body will put it out of reach for many traditional 7D buyers. 

Any word on a higher resolution full frame body coming with it?


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Sep 1, 2020)

Maybe now the Birders will stop poo pooing the new M series camera... and let regular consumers have something nice.


----------



## Mark3794 (Sep 1, 2020)

This rumors are becoming a rollercoaster of emotions


----------



## slclick (Sep 1, 2020)

I don't believe one birth signifies another's death here. I just hope they keep churning out more bodies as it seems the historical use of taking a common camera such as a 5D or 7D series and making the most of it to fit your skill set is not enough for many users which cry for a very particular feature set to do what they need or envision. Therefore, the more the merrier. Who doesn't love more choices?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

amorse said:


> Very interesting - maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then.



How the hell does that follow?

Isn't it just barely conceivable that Canon will KEEP the M series AND do this?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 1, 2020)

A million 7D fan boys’ eyebrows just went up.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 1, 2020)

amorse said:


> Very interesting - maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then. I guess the crux of the question here will be whether or not the "higher margin" nature of the body will put it out of reach for many traditional 7D buyers.
> 
> Any word on a higher resolution full frame body coming with it?



Doubt this will kill EOS-M, unless Canon plan on relaunching all the current EF-M lenses in RP-S mount which is unlikely.

The RF APS-C camera is a niche product for a small number of people prepared to pay a premium for an APS-C camera to use high quality lenses. Despite what these people think they are in the small minority of Canon's current APS-C customers.


I think essentially what we'll see is an M7 and an R7 essentially identical except with different mounts.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 1, 2020)

There’s your mirror  less 7D.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Doubt this will kill EOS-M, unless Canon plan on relaunching all the current EF-M lenses in RP-S mount which is unlikely.



I do agree I can't imagine this killing the EOS-M series, but your comment did make me very curious about what it would look like if Canon just simply remade similar designs to the EF-M lenses in an RF-S format. I know the RF mount is bigger, but would be curious to know how small would be possible.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Sep 1, 2020)

I still think the EOS-M can survive as a small compact camera

Looks like Canon will build an R7 after all which will please many loyal Canon users


----------



## addola (Sep 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The RF APS-C camera is a niche product for a small number of people prepared to pay a premium for an APS-C camera to use high quality lenses. Despite what these people think they are in the small minority of Canon's current APS-C customers.



I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2020)

The EOS R7 folks.


----------



## MiJax (Sep 1, 2020)

I think it spells trouble for the M line. Now, if they didn't mention the "micro" body I'd agree with you, but having two small framed bodies, with APS-C sensors and different lens mounts just doesn't seem profitable and loses significant brand synergy. Its much more profitable to have one big customer group than it is to have two moderate sized ones. The development slows significantly trying to share resources with two similar product lines.

But all that said, the fact that is a pivot off the last Canon VP's suggestion tells me anything is possible.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I do agree I can't imagine this killing the EOS-M series, but your comment did make me very curious about what it would look like if Canon just simply remade similar designs to the EF-M lenses in an RF-S format. I know the RF mount is bigger, but would be curious to know how small would be possible.



Well, there'd be one big difference. The minimum diameter of such a lens (unless Canon wants to design one with a taper), would be about 77mm. That's based on me eyeballing with a ruler across the 40mm pancake, whose flange is maybe 2mm narrower. So if Canon were to move the M lenses over to an RF mount, they'd end up with what, a bunch of uniform-width lenses with only 58 (or so) mm of innards in them? More likely they'd upgrade them some, maybe wider apertures, maybe fancier IS, or a combo of the two. (with respect to EF-M lens selection, 61 mm imposes a lot of constraints on what Canon can do in a lens; if they *ever* decide on some juicier options, they'll have to relax that limit to do them.)

Edit to add: I just realized even the pancake 40mm widens just a bit--I was measuring the front side and drawing conclusions about the camera side's size. So I should have said 75mm minimum diameter for an RF lens.)


----------



## knight427 (Sep 1, 2020)

M6 mk2 sensor
R6 speed minus 2 fps
RP body upgraded and weather sealed


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

knight427 said:


> M6 mk2 sensor
> R6 speed minus 2 fps
> RP body upgraded and weather sealed



That wouldn't be a bad package. I'm assuming you'd also want the autofocus off the R5 (or R6 if it's as good--I don't know, I paid little attention to the R6).

Of course, one could also imagine:

M6 mk2 sensor
Autofocus off the R5/6
New improved body, beefed up, weather sealed.
Some name on it that isn't M, but...
Whoops, an EF-M mount.

That, of course, would be the subject of a _different_ rumor.


----------



## mangobutter (Sep 1, 2020)

With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.

If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.


----------



## Chris_Seattle (Sep 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The RF APS-C camera is a niche product for a small number of people prepared to pay a premium for an APS-C camera to use high quality lenses. Despite what these people think they are in the small minority of Canon's current APS-C



I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.

I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.

The R5 is a compelling option for me to replace both my 5DIV AND my 7Dii, because the R5 is now faster, has incredible autofocus, and _almost _has the same pixel density of the 7DMarkii. Equivalent crop section of R5 is 17.58Mpix. Think that’s a coincidence that they made it _just under_ the 20.1 mpix of the 7Dii? Like, they couldn’t push the R5 to 50Mpix, so it would have same density. Also _just under_ the pixel count of the 5DSR as well.

I think there is a market for the R7, but it would need to have at least the 32Mpix sensor to be a huge step up in pixel density for birders. And it needs the ergonomics to handle big whites. And hell, maybe they will make some RF-S lenses at some point to sell more options to those that go down that path.
But I think the market will still exist for all 3 segments.

my 2 cents


----------



## docsmith (Sep 1, 2020)

The M6 II sensor is actually very nice. Only the Fuji APS-C sensors appear better. Put that in an R, give it DPAF II with better AF than the M6 II (especially in H+ mode) and that is a real winner of a camera.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.



Again, wow, let's ditch that damn EF-M mount.

Why, for God's sake?

Because YOU think it's useless?

Do you honestly imagine the only reason Canon created this mount was in case they wanted to create a 7D successor on it?

It's evident from the huge number of people buying EF-M that it's far from useless to a lot of people. Canon makes a ton of money from it, even with the limited lens selection. It's not going away. OK, it's not going into your camera bag either, but that doesn't mean it should go away.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 1, 2020)

I will admit, I think an R7 makes more sense than an M7 to replace the 7D. An R7 has less need for lower end lenses or being compact, since the primary customer will be paying a hefty amount to begin with and is probably leaning towards bigger glass anyway. I honestly think a R7 would sell fine if it stood totally on its own and didn't even have any crop-dedicated lenses. Having the 7D market segment move towards an R7 would definitely sell more higher-margin RF glass like the 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 for birding/sports.

But that said, the M series on its own makes a lot of sense to me. I could totally see the M series totally replacing the rebel line altogether, and could also easily occupy the 90D part of the market if they expanded it. I do think the 90D segment is starting to be replaced by cheap full frame cameras like the RP, R, and R6, though.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 1, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> A million 7D fan boys’ eyebrows just went up.



Yes


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 1, 2020)

Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 1, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> A million 7D fan boys’ eyebrows just went up.


Are there really that many of us?


----------



## amorse (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> How the hell does that follow?
> 
> Isn't it just barely conceivable that Canon will KEEP the M series AND do this?


It's certainly conceivable that they'd keep both, that's why I said *maybe*. Until this rumour I was pretty firmly in the camp that M wasn't going anywhere any time soon. With that said, I have no more of a crystal ball than anyone else in here. 

How the hell it follows? My logic behind why M *could* disappear is based on a few things:

The rumour here from a few days ago that said EF-M may disappear in 2021 (CR1 in all fairness)
With a crop sensor camera in RF mount, Canon would be maintaining 3 different mounts for crop sensor cameras, and only one of those is an easy transition pathway to more expensive bodies (RF-S), though one could argue EF-S isn't a bad transition to RF due to the adapters available. I could certainly see Canon working to reduce the number of ecosystems they're supporting in a dramatically shrinking camera market, but whether EF-S or EF-M would become the sacrificial lamb remains to be seen. 
Past reports have implied that many manufacturers are intending to put more emphasis on higher-margin and higher-end bodies. I think that priority focus may lead to Canon trying to create more ways to get buyers into the RF mount, which makes sense for creating an RF APS-C camera which can direct first-time buyers toward the RF mount. If Canon wants to move people up market, and the top of the market will be RF full frame cameras, then making very affordable APS-C RF bodies will likely become a higher priority.
EF-M fills a niche which a lot of people really like (myself included) - very small and portable and relatively price conscious. No question that there is a market for those products - the M50 still shows that today. However, if an APS-C RF mount camera can get to a comparable size as an EF-M body (likely in coordination with some size-conscious lenses), it may hold a very similar niche as EF-M but have greater value to Canon as a transition pathway. 
Anyway, it's anyone's guess, but with 3 APS-C sensor cameras being maintained, I could certainly understand if Canon were to offload one or more based on past rumours. But again, I can't see the future any more than anyone else.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 1, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Are there really that many of us?


Well.. half a million people with 2 eyes each maybe?


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 1, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
> 
> If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.


I can't see Canon making an RF-S line of lenses. Yes they will make less expensive lenses but not another whole mount. 
I think the M line will survive on its own as long as it sells. 
But a one off R7 makes sense. They will want to retain all those 7D mk ii user who have L class on their 7D's. 
My 2 cents.


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 1, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I will admit, I think an R7 makes more sense than an M7 to replace the 7D. An R7 has less need for lower end lenses or being compact, since the primary customer will be paying a hefty amount to begin with and is probably leaning towards bigger glass anyway. I honestly think a R7 would sell fine if it stood totally on its own and didn't even have any crop-dedicated lenses. Having the 7D market segment move towards an R7 would definitely sell more higher-margin RF glass like the 15-35, 70-200, and 100-500 for birding/sports.
> 
> But that said, the M series on its own makes a lot of sense to me. I could totally see the M series totally replacing the rebel line altogether, and could also easily occupy the 90D part of the market if they expanded it. I do think the 90D segment is starting to be replaced by cheap full frame cameras like the RP, R, and R6, though.


I agree, I have been using my R5 for 2 weeks. But I am not letting go of my 7Dmk ll. I still like the extra reach/pixels on the bird. If they produce a tough R body with an APS-c sensor I would be all in. The R5 autofocus with a 25-32 megapixel crop sensor would be great if they can keep the noise down. Plus all the high end lens development will be on the R body. No need to produce R-S mount lenses just for one camera.


----------



## pauhana (Sep 1, 2020)

End of 2021....ouch.


----------



## reef58 (Sep 1, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
> 
> If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.



I am going to disagree all sorts of ways. The M is the best selling line. The M will fit in a cargo pocket with a lens and weighs basically nothing. A high end RF-APS-C is going to be much larger and heavier not to mention the lenses. They serve different purposes and not mutually exclusive.


----------



## padam (Sep 1, 2020)

I think people misinterpret what is happening.
The EF-M will be just like the EF mount
e.g. it will stop development after the new M cameras (which should keep it relevant for 3-4 more years) and it will continue to sell (older technology = much cheaper, just like with the Sony A7 line)
The newer more expensive stuff will be the RF-mount and eventually there will be cheaper lenses and cheaper crop sensor RF-mount cameras (as this rumour suggests they can reduce the footprint even beyond the EOS RP), but it's a very long way into the future.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> I agree, I have been using my R5 for 2 weeks. But I am not letting go of my 7Dmk ll. I still like the extra reach/pixels on the bird. If they produce a tough R body with an APS-c sensor I would be all in. The R5 autofocus with a 25-32 megapixel crop sensor would be great if they can keep the noise down. Plus all the high end lens development will be on the R body. No need to produce R-S mount lenses just for one camera.



Yes. THIS WOULD NOT BE A NEW MOUNT. Not even a faux "new mount" like the EF-S. (Basically almost identical to EF; it even takes EF lenses without an adapter!)


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 1, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?


No need to compete with the M line. I almost think of Canon as two different camera companies now. The M line for small light less expensive but still a quality product. VS The R line for pros and serious amateurs. They are letting the existing user base of EF and EF-s lenses/bodies decide which camp to migrate to and they will follow the money. 
A crop sensor R7 would be a migration path for the majority of 7D mk ll users who have L class on their 7Ds. I don't know how big that group is but I don't think Canon wants to lose them. I am in that group.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

padam said:


> I think people misinterpret what is happening.
> The EF-M will be just like the EF mount
> e.g. it will stop development after the new M cameras (which should keep it relevant for 3-4 more years) and it will continue to sell (older technology = much cheaper, just like with the Sony A7 line)
> The newer more expensive stuff will be the RF-mount and eventually there will be cheaper lenses and cheaper crop sensor RF-mount cameras (as this rumour suggests they can reduce the footprint even beyond the EOS RP), but it's a very long way into the future.



I don't know how anyone can read this rumor and conclude on its basis that the EF-M mount will stop development. This would have nothing whatsoever to do with the EF-M mount.

Now there may be _other _ reasons to conclude that the EF-M mount will no longer be developed (among them that they've probably done as much as they can with the lens form factor restrictions they're abiding by) but _this rumor_ certainly isn't one of them.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> No need to compete with the M line. I almost think of Canon as two different camera companies now. The M line for small light less expensive but still a quality product. VS The R line for pros and serious amateurs. They are letting the existing user base of EF and EF-s lenses/bodies decide which camp to migrate to and they will follow the money.
> A crop sensor R7 would be a migration path for the majority of 7D mk ll users who have L class on their 7Ds. I don't know how big that group is but I don't think Canon wants to lose them. I am in that group.



Really, it's closer to three companies. After all, there are all those point and shoot cameras.

Heck, there's even a FOURTH line, little jobs the size of a phone (OK perhaps a bit thicker) that will print (yes, print) instantly, just like those old Polaroids.

So having cameras with "no upgrade path" really is nothing new.

And yes...I don't imagine why people imagine this would compete with the M line. They're not meant for the same people. But we've seen, between this and the M7 thread, people who imagine it must be either-or, and even some who hate the M line and want it to drop dead, for some unfathomable reason.


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yes. THIS WOULD NOT BE A NEW MOUNT. Not even a faux "new mount" like the EF-S. (Basically almost identical to EF; it even takes EF lenses without an adapter!)


Thats an interesting idea. Do you mean a mirrorless EF mount body?


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Really, it's closer to three companies. After all, there are all those point and shoot cameras.
> 
> Heck, there's even a FOURTH line, little jobs the size of a phone (OK perhaps a bit thicker) that will print (yes, print) instantly, just like those old Polaroids.
> 
> ...


Yeah I wasn't really thinking about the Powershots. They have an uphill battle with the smartphone world.


----------



## padam (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I don't know how anyone can read this rumor and conclude on its basis that the EF-M mount will stop development. This would have nothing whatsoever to do with the EF-M mount.
> 
> Now there may be _other _ reasons to conclude that the EF-M mount will no longer be developed (among them that they've probably done as much as they can with the lens form factor restrictions they're abiding by) but _this rumor_ certainly isn't one of them.


It's not so difficult to see that they aren't planning an RF-mount crop sensor camera and 0 crop sensor lenses and as I said, they can make cameras like Nikon's Z50, which isn't that big or heavy. They are slowly migrating their cinema line to RF-mount as well, because it is the logical thing to do.

No, they haven't done nearly as much as they could with the EF-M. They just don't want to, as the return on development investment is too little and smartphones are slowly eating up this segment.
As I said, there is plenty of life left in the EF-M they will continue to sell the cheap stuff and new cameras will be coming. Just not in the long-run as cameras are getting newer technology, but also become more and more expensive and one mount is enough to deal with.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> Thats an interesting idea. Do you mean a mirrorless EF mount body?



No...I mean this camera would have an R mount *identical* to the R mount on the R, RP, R6, and R5. There's no need to create some sort of RF-S kludge mount, like some people seem to imagine would be happening. Even if they design an R lens with a crop-size image circle, so what? Why bodge it so it won't mount on a full frame camera? That was the point of creating EF-S. But you can ALREADY mount EF-S lenses on an R mount (with the adapter of course); the camera just crops it. So there's simply no need for a special mount to handle RF crop lenses kludged so they won't go onto an R mount.

(As a side note, non-Canon-brand EF-S lenses, at least some of them, _don't _put my R5 into crop mode automatically. It's kind of cool, actually, it's a "tunnel vision" effect. It's clipped top and bottom just a bit, but not much.)


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 1, 2020)

As soon as this posted I crashed through the ceiling of Canon's development center and started screaming 'DON'T TEASE ME"


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 1, 2020)

Well....that's it then...it's been a long-time coming gang, but...if this is the R7 then I have nothing left to whine about. Hey now heeeey now don't dreeeam it's over


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

padam said:


> It's not so difficult to see that they aren't planning an RF-mount crop sensor camera and 0 crop sensor lenses and as I said, they can make cameras like Nikon's Z50, which isn't that big or heavy. They are slowly migrating their cinema line to RF-mount as well, because it is the logical thing to do.
> 
> No, they haven't done nearly as much as they could with the EF-M. They just don't want to, as the return on development investment is too little and smartphones are slowly eating up this segment.
> As I said, there is plenty of life left in the EF-M they will continue to sell the cheap stuff and new cameras will be coming. Just not in the long-run as cameras are getting newer technology, but also become more and more expensive and one mount is enough to deal with.



And you've missed my point. So did someone else who I responded to earlier, in his reply to me.

That's two of you who have looked at this rumor, and said, basically, "well that means the EF-M is dead" (or probably dead). No, *this rumor* doesn't mean that. It doesn't even do a thing to make the demise of the EF-M _more likely_ than before.

Both of you have cited other reasons to conclude that EF-M is likely going to be deemphasized (more than it already is), but haven't explained to me how you make a leap _from this rumor_ to concluding the EF-M is in more trouble than anyone thought yesterday.


----------



## amorse (Sep 1, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Doubt this will kill EOS-M, unless Canon plan on relaunching all the current EF-M lenses in RP-S mount which is unlikely.
> 
> The RF APS-C camera is a niche product for a small number of people prepared to pay a premium for an APS-C camera to use high quality lenses. Despite what these people think they are in the small minority of Canon's current APS-C customers.
> 
> ...


Certainly the RF camera referenced here seems akin to a 7D successor and targeting users who will pay a premium for an APS-C camera, but I struggle to imagine Canon building this camera and then leaving things there. I think if they make one APS-C RF body, there is a good chance that other APS-C RF cameras come along to hit other price points. Canon has pumped R&D into RF, but the price for entry is still on the high side for first-time camera buyers. I could certainly see a lower cost body coming to RF to entice first time buyers to get into the Canon RF ecosystem, much the same way EF-S bodies were an easy transition to EF bodies. 

I'm not sure I agree that Canon wouldn't re-launch lenses in APS-C RF mount - it really depends on their long-term plan, and they certainly re-launched several EF lenses in RF mount. Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents). If Canon can fill out the lower cost/lower size range of RF lenses and shows willingness to create an APS-C RF line at all, then I could see a lot of temptation to move away from EF-S and EF-M entirely. Doing so could potentially fill (to some extent) the "small and light" niche held by EOS-M, and the "entry to mid-level" niche held by EF-S, while creating a more direct transition for those buying entry level bodies to purchase higher-end full frame bodies. It would also reduce the number of mounts they need to manage, and ensure that new entry level cameras are developed on the same platform they've openly admitted to focusing on. The more I think about it, the more I struggle to see Canon continuing to release bodies with mounts where no new glass is coming any time soon.


----------



## padam (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And you've missed my point. So did someone else who I responded to earlier, in his reply to me.
> 
> That's two of you who have looked at this rumor, and said, basically, "well that means the EF-M is dead" (or probably dead). No, *this rumor* doesn't mean that. It doesn't even do a thing to make the demise of the EF-M _more likely_ than before.
> 
> Both of you have cited other reasons to conclude that EF-M is likely going to be deemphasized (more than it already is), but haven't explained to me how you make a leap _from this rumor_ to concluding the EF-M is in more trouble than anyone thought yesterday.


Your guess is plain wrong and you can see that just by reading the contents, which are based on _everything _that has happened until now, and predicted to happen in the future. And everything anybody is writing about future products is a prediction and it may change, that's not difficult to see.
People seem to be very sensitive about a system potentially being discontinued (or just everything in general that is a differing opinion or written in a style different to them, etc. etc.).
I don't really get this, since it will remain available for several years to come, it will have the higher-end body that was missing before, and it is also a very small system to begin with, not like the Olympus m43 system with a much wider range of products and much more development behind it.


----------



## sanj (Sep 1, 2020)

Brilliant news. I know some will argue, but to me, a smaller form factor with lighter lens is very welcome.


----------



## Fletchahh (Sep 1, 2020)

amorse said:


> Certainly the RF camera referenced here seems akin to a 7D successor and targeting users who will pay a premium for an APS-C camera, but I struggle to imagine Canon building this camera and then leaving things there. I think if they make one APS-C RF body, there is a good chance that other APS-C RF cameras come along to hit other price points. Canon has pumped R&D into RF, but the price for entry is still on the high side for first-time camera buyers. I could certainly see a lower cost body coming to RF to entice first time buyers to get into the Canon RF ecosystem, much the same way EF-S bodies were an easy transition to EF bodies.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree that Canon wouldn't re-launch lenses in APS-C RF mount - it really depends on their long-term plan, and they certainly re-launched several EF lenses in RF mount. Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents). If Canon can fill out the lower cost/lower size range of RF lenses and shows willingness to create an APS-C RF line at all, then I could see a lot of temptation to move away from EF-S and EF-M entirely. Doing so could potentially fill (to some extent) the "small and light" niche held by EOS-M, and the "entry to mid-level" niche held by EF-S, while creating a more direct transition for those buying entry level bodies to purchase higher-end full frame bodies. It would also reduce the number of mounts they need to manage, and ensure that new entry level cameras are developed on the same platform they've openly admitted to focusing on. The more I think about it, the more I struggle to see Canon continuing to release bodies with mounts where no new glass is coming any time soon.



I hope some RF-S or equivalent lenses get developed, if only to see what high end crop lenses Sigma comes up with. I personally love (and own) the Sigma EF-S 18-35mm f1.8 and 50-100mm f1.8, and even the lack IS in those lenses doesn't matter as much with the introduction of IBIS.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 1, 2020)

I'd written off APS-c for the RF mount. But great - more bodies feeding the RF lens line up.

Higher speed - 8k video cameras with IBIS, on a smaller APS-c chip, heat pumps, and 200fps? Global shutter? Also good for frame by frame bird flight.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

Fletchahh said:


> I hope some RF-S or equivalent lenses get developed, if only to see what high end crop lenses Sigma comes up with. I personally love (and own) the Sigma EF-S 18-35mm f1.8 and 50-100mm f1.8, and even the lack IS in those lenses doesn't matter as much with the introduction of IBIS.



It's _possible_ Canon will say "hell no" to that. I'm speculating (and of course all of this is predicated on them producing a RF mount with a crop sensor behind the mount). EF-S lenses brought in some confusion, and Canon went out of the way to make sure you couldn't put a crop EF lens onto a full frame camera, making sure to put some sort of tab in, and creating a new tab for their crop sensor cameras that would take that tab. (It's not really a separate mount, honestly.) 

With an RF APS-C lens, they'd want to label it very, *very* clearly to make sure somebody doesn't buy the lens, stick it on their full frame camera, have it go into crop mode, then complain that there is a bug--"my new 69mm makes my camera go into crop mode!" "Well, yes, silly, because it's a crop lens!" "Really?"

I'd even go so far as to call it an "RF APS-C" lens on the box, instead of coding it with an S, which could mean anything, but that's a decision for the marketers, IF they decide want to go there with crop lenses in the first place. Which wouldn't surprise me either way.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 1, 2020)

Stuart said:


> I'd written off APS-c for the RF mount. But great - more bodies feeding the RF lens line up.
> 
> Higher speed - 8k video cameras with IBIS, on a smaller APS-c chip, heat pumps, and 200fps? Global shutter? Also good for frame by frame bird flight.



For that they'd have to either upsample, or come up with a 45MP APS-C sensor. The 32 MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6-II is _already_ a marvel.


----------



## slclick (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> How the hell does that follow?
> 
> Isn't it just barely conceivable that Canon will KEEP the M series AND do this?


I know, it's such an illogical train of thought. Some of these guys, sheesh.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 1, 2020)

I certainly see the appeal of the M cameras--I had the first version for a year but sold it because I always used a FF camera anyway. I bought the M for its compactness, but used the 5Div for image quality, even though it was a load to drag around relatively speaking. And besides which I need a backup body for assignment work, so both have to be the same sensor size. Architectural, so it's critical the lenses stay 'wide'.

So here's my tangential idea:

How 'bout a range-finder style RF full frame body? Make it even more compact than the R is now and give it enough pixel density that you can still crop your birdies?


----------



## amorse (Sep 1, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And you've missed my point. So did someone else who I responded to earlier, in his reply to me.
> 
> That's two of you who have looked at this rumor, and said, basically, "well that means the EF-M is dead" (or probably dead). No, *this rumor* doesn't mean that. It doesn't even do a thing to make the demise of the EF-M _more likely_ than before.
> 
> Both of you have cited other reasons to conclude that EF-M is likely going to be deemphasized (more than it already is), but haven't explained to me how you make a leap _from this rumor_ to concluding the EF-M is in more trouble than anyone thought yesterday.


I'm assuming you're referencing me here - my apologies if I've got it wrong. Again, I did not say "well the EF-M mount is dead", nor did I say it is probably dead. I said "maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then" which was a reference to the rumour from August 29th that said it would be phased out in 2021. 

As to why *this* rumour could lend any credibility to the rumour from the 29th, this rumour said this will be a "higher margin camera built around speed and a *smaller footprint* than the EOS R5 and EOS R6." I'd argue that EOS-M cameras are made to have the smallest footprint reasonable for an ILC, and establishing a small footprint body in RF mount with an APS-C sensor steps on the toes of EOS-M in some ways. Combine that new piece of information from this rumour (a smaller footprint body) with the rumour from August 29 on the end of EOS-M, and with Canon's notes on moving R&D focus largely into RF mount, and I think there is more reason to believe Canon could reproduce some of the benefits of EOS-M in the RF mount, which could eventually make EOS-M redundant. 

Again, I'm not saying M is dead, but this rumour impacts my perspective on the longevity of EOS-M.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 1, 2020)

amorse said:


> Very interesting - maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then. I guess the crux of the question here will be whether or not the "higher margin" nature of the body will put it out of reach for many traditional 7D buyers.
> 
> Any word on a higher resolution full frame body coming with it?



Compared to all M bodies and entry level cameras, the 7D is also "higher margin".


----------



## Philrp (Sep 1, 2020)

FYI.

I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford, and it let me buy lenses that could fit any Canon camera, while retaining their value.

If photography ever becomes my living, I just need to change the body. No M camera would can do any of this.

Can't wait for my APS-C RF mount camera, with EF adapter ;o)


----------



## brad-man (Sep 1, 2020)

Philrp said:


> FYI.
> 
> I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford, and it let me buy lenses that could fit any Canon camera, while retaining their value.
> 
> ...


That's all well and good, but your situation is hardly representative of the buying public at large...


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 1, 2020)

padam said:


> Your guess is plain wrong and you can see that just by reading the contents, which are based on _everything _that has happened until now, and predicted to happen in the future. And everything anybody is writing about future products is a prediction and it may change, that's not difficult to see.


3 things you know for sure about a forecast:
1. It is wrong
2. The further out the forecast, the more wrong (inaccurate) it is
3. Any forecast is better than having no forecast


----------



## dwarven (Sep 1, 2020)

Philrp said:


> FYI.
> 
> I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford, and it let me buy lenses that could fit any Canon camera, while retaining their value.
> 
> ...



You can adapt EF lenses to an M body.


----------



## tataylino (Sep 2, 2020)

Only when they introduced an entry level APS-C RF mount (maybe will be named R100 or R1000?), that would be end of M line.


----------



## sfericean (Sep 2, 2020)

NICE!!!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 2, 2020)

dwarven said:


> You can adapt EF lenses to an M body.



He said "I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford". No M camera is high end enough to come close to the 7D. At least not in ergonomics and build quality.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 2, 2020)

Interesting that it is supposed to be a 'smaller footprint' than the R5/R6. In which case, a lot of the native RF lenses (and adapted big EF ones) are going to look awfully big attached to it. It'll be quite a bit smaller than the old 7 series bodies. How can they then not introduce smaller RF-S lenses? The unlikelihood of Canon developing yet another lens mount is the reason I've always discounted an RF APSC body.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 2, 2020)

A 7D category RF body (1.6x crop, high speed, R5 AF) would make many wildlife photographers happy who consider the R6 too low resolution and the R5 unreachable in price.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?


It doesn't compete with the M system at all, in my opinion. The vast availability of lenses, better AF, better weather sealing, different ergonomics, more rugged, etc., will put this in an ASP-c class all it's own. I'd expect the body to be a slightly smaller version of the R5.


----------



## slclick (Sep 2, 2020)

Just because Ford is coming out with a new Mustang, no one should be worried about the F-150. There. Does that help those connecting dots that should not be connected? Stop bringing up the M.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Isn't it just barely _*conceivable*_ that Canon will KEEP the M series AND do this?



I do not think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## slclick (Sep 2, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> I do not think that word means what you think it means.


That was the worst use of the PB quote ever.


----------



## dcm (Sep 2, 2020)

Talk about off topic. Starting with the first reply. Why are we talking so much about the M series and EF-M in a thread that had no mention of them in the title and original post. This should be a discussion about APS-C body in the R family with RF lenses which should generate a lot of excitement on its own. There are other threads to discuss the M.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Jethro said:


> Interesting that it is supposed to be a 'smaller footprint' than the R5/R6. In which case, a lot of the native RF lenses (and adapted big EF ones) are going to look awfully big attached to it. It'll be quite a bit smaller than the old 7 series bodies. How can they then not introduce smaller RF-S lenses? The unlikelihood of Canon developing yet another lens mount is the reason I've always discounted an RF APSC body.



Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."

Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras _already handle_ cropped lenses.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2020)

Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor. 

Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.

Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.

But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?

Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

dcm said:


> Talk about off topic. Starting with the first reply. Why are we talking so much about the M series and EF-M in a thread that had no mention of them in the title and original post. This should be a discussion about APS-C body in the R family with RF lenses which should generate a lot of excitement on its own. There are other threads to discuss the M.



Yup. But I suppose as long as people keep bringing it up, I'll keep responding. (And note, it's the people who want the M to die, or think this somehow means it will die, who keep bringing it up.)


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Sep 2, 2020)

There will be an RF-S body, but zero RF-S lenses. All RF lenses will be RF lenses and usable on all RF bodies. They'll have a RF nifty fifty, the 18-45mm, and some other small and wide primes, and that will be good enough to keep a small-ish kit for the small-ish body.

If the EF-M mount dies, the RF-S bodies won't be the replacement for me if I want to replace it. I'm going Fuji for when I need small and light, because RF-S wouldn't be small enough. What an RF-S line _will_ be good for is a R7, and the new Rebel line where the consumers buy one or two lenses max if they buy any at all. No need to develop RF-S lenses when non-L lenses are small enough for that scenario.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.
> 
> Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.



That's a very good way to explain that issue!



[email protected] said:


> Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.
> 
> But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?
> 
> Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.



By this logic, Canon should make a very high MP camera with a crop mode, so the 7D folks can have their "reach." There's currently a camera out there that resembles this, and it's the R5. Buuuuutttt... it's expensive, more so than they imagine an R7 would be. And if we wait for the (occasionally rumored) R5s/R3, it will probably be even more expensive.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

I can't believe @Michael Clark isn't all over this thread.  

Let me say that if this comes true, I will happily admit I was wrong.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."
> 
> Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras _already handle_ cropped lenses.



Pretty much what I was thinking. I do wonder how they would handle the marketing though, as I'm not sure just labeling the box would be sufficient. Although presumably, most people buying into the RF system would be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that a 15-85 RF Crop lens won't have a 15mm field of view on an R5.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 2, 2020)

Chris_Seattle said:


> I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.
> 
> I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.
> 
> ...



I think they probably set the sensor megapixel format of the R5 to make uncropped 8k RAW possible, 50 MP would have necessitated a slight crop and perhaps required too much processing power/resulting in too much heat to work. It would make sense if the 5DSR replacement is 100 MP with no 8K, and maybe nothing better for video than 4k 30p standard, which I would be totally down with as long as I could get a smaller uncropped raw image size (like maybe 66/50/33/25 even) as a setting.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> By this logic, Canon should make a very high MP camera with a crop mode, so the 7D folks can have their "reach." There's currently a camera out there that resembles this, and it's the R5. Buuuuutttt... it's expensive, more so than they imagine an R7 would be. And if we wait for the (occasionally rumored) R5s/R3, it will probably be even more expensive.



I do wonder about the pricing. To be a 7DII replacement, it really has to have all the features of the R5. Would Canon offer all that with an APS-C sensor at a deeply discounted price? The 7DII had a feature set that was superior to the 5DIII (The model that was current when the 7DII was released). If an R5 is not similarly equipped, 7DII users will scream. But if it comes it at say $2,600 (which would still be a huge bargain in comparison to the R5) will people also scream?


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 2, 2020)

I think the camera market is in such flux, not even Canon knows exactly what lines they will be making in a few years. But I think the most obvious and least complicated answer is that Canon looks at the RF mount to ultimately replace the EF and EF-S mounts. I think the success of the R5 and R6 has perhaps convinced them that this will happen much sooner than they originally thought. So it makes sense that current APS-C users will be given some choices to join the RF mount consumers. R7 seems to be the first choice, but Canon will no doubt be interested to see if there is a market for current Rebel users and current 90D users to switch to an RF APS-C cameras. And to keep things simple, there is no reason that I can see for Canon to create any special RF-S lenses. They already have RF patents for lenses with focal lengths that will work as a kit lens for RF APS-C buyers. They can sell those lenses to RF FF buyers as well. One mount and one line of lenses (RF) for all of those looking for a replacement for EF and EF-S.

The M line is targeted for those wanting VERY small and VERY light. If RF lenses and RF APS-C cameras can be made small enough, then M might get phased out. I consider that very unlikely, perhaps impossible. I seriously think that those that want the M line to disappear or somehow think it is redundant to have two APS-C lines, have no idea just how small the M cameras and lenses are.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 2, 2020)

knight427 said:


> M6 mk2 sensor
> R6 speed minus 2 fps
> RP body upgraded and weather sealed



If this is ahigh end APS-C then I hope none of that is true at all. This sounds like it should be a 7DII successor, and priced at around $2K. I would have no trouble believing 14fps mechanical with smaller shutter, same 20fps e-shutter and hopefully since the sensor is smaller even faster scan speed than the R6.I’d prefer something less than 32MP too, 26-28MP would be fine (61-66MP FFE) for superior ISO performance than M6II/90D. 4K30p from oversampled 6K30p, 4K60p from pixel binned full sensor read,, same AF as R6/R5, same EVF res as R6, same LCD top screen from R5, dual SD but preferably CFExpress Type A for one slot like Sony A7sIII. Same sealing as R5. Would be very tempting to me rather than get the R5 as I don’t need all the advanced video stuff, but R6 is too pixel challenged for my birding.


----------



## Maru (Sep 2, 2020)

so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 2, 2020)

Don't do it. Go full frame. The 7D taught me digital photography, the 6D let me know when I was getting better. Love the R but am really looking forward to R5.


----------



## dick ranez (Sep 2, 2020)

I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 2, 2020)

I was going to wait for the new M body, but this article made me change my mind


----------



## Baron_Karza (Sep 2, 2020)

OMG!! RF mounts will no longer have new FF models???? OMG!!!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2020)

Maru said:


> so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible


An R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the RP, R, or the R6. I wouldn't expect it to be.


----------



## secant (Sep 2, 2020)

Seems like a reasonable approach. Canon just released the 100-500, 600/11, and 800/11 they don't want to make a 7D successor on the M platform and not have these lenses.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 2, 2020)

Sure a lot of product design going on here around a CR1 rumor. An R5 with the new AA filter already gives you as much resolution as a 7D II (even though the pixel pitch is 7% coarser) with enormously better AF and a wider field of view so you can find the damn bird. An "R7" with the features dreamed up here would be at least $2500, so what is another 1500 for an R5 if you are already shooing with Big Whites? I think the rumor makes no sense at all and certainly not in the allotted time frame. The 80-100 MP R (R5s?) makes far more sense and that makes the APS-c version even less interesting (and see how that "s" gets confusing). The M line stands on its own as a truly portable ILC system, so this really has no relevance to M other than the note about a "smaller body", which in itself makes no sense for a 7D replacement that has to swing Big Whites.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Maru said:


> so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible



Not quite sure how you reach this conclusion. There's no reason they can't price this the same as the RP since it will be a different type of camera. It won't be "higher" than or "lower" than the RP. (Though frankly, I do expect it to cost a lot more than the RP anyway.)


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

addola said:


> I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.



still not nowhere as small as the EOS-M

I mean I know there's tunnel vision here but in certain markets of the world - small cameras sell better than bigger ones.

your suggestion is completely DOA in those markets.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents).


18-45mm is by all indications a full frame lens. Canon made a 17-40mm in the past for full frame.

There was also no indicators on the source that it was anything other than full frame .. ie: it was a RF 18-45mm no, RF 18-45mm "S" or RF-C or RF-S .. there would have to be an indicator, otherwise mass confusion would reign on what lens worked with what camera.

Also 18-45 is a completely moronic kit lens. (29-70mm).

And a 18-45 certainly wouldn't get me to leave the M's with its stellar 11-22mm either.

Also full frame primes are meaningless on an APS-C as well, as you even lose that 1 EV DOF reducing your field of view.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 2, 2020)

dick ranez said:


> I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.


that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.


----------



## addola (Sep 2, 2020)

canonnews said:


> still not nowhere as small as the EOS-M
> 
> I mean I know there's tunnel vision here but in certain markets of the world - small cameras sell better than bigger ones.
> 
> your suggestion is completely DOA in those markets.


Yes, I know that the M50 is the best selling camera in Japan. Canon may want to market to a different segment; after all, they do use different names for different markets. But my point is that an APS-C RF camera doesn't have to be costly.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> I do agree I can't imagine this killing the EOS-M series, but your comment did make me very curious about what it would look like if Canon just simply remade similar designs to the EF-M lenses in an RF-S format. I know the RF mount is bigger, but would be curious to know how small would be possible.



7D users don't care about "small". They care about fast handling ergonomics and durability.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Chris_Seattle said:


> I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.
> 
> I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.
> 
> ...



The resolution of the R was determined by the width, in pixels, of 8K video. 45 MP makes uncropped 8K video much simpler. 50MP would either require a crop or downsampling the width of 50MP down to the width of 45MP. That would create even more heat that the R5 already generates.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> The EOS R7 folks.



Or R90. Time will tell.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Sep 2, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
> 
> If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.


A whole lot of people want small and cheap (below 1000$ for a body) for their APS-C system, hence the great success for all the M cameras out there. They wouldn't never by an expensive RF-S mount APS-C which will be in or near R6 territory pricewise.
The M system will only be obsolete if there will also be Rebel like RF-S cameras some time in the future. And even then I think it will be rather unlikely as the RF-S lenses will mostly be more expensive than any of the M mount lenses.
In my opinion there is a market for both as it was/is also the case with EF-M and EF-S systems in parallel.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
> 
> If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.



Where do you think the revenue to launch the R5 and R6 came from? The EOS M system is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the face of the planet.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

Economics dictate which lines Canon will not develop further and which they continue to support, unless they’re trying to move you to a new platform.

They will still make EF glass as DSLR users will not move to mirrorless until they are ready. And non Canon users might buy EF to adapt on their bodies.

The m mount will continue as long as it makes a profit and in my opinion continues to support Canon’s market share which is very important to them. So a million (made up number) M series helps maintain that market share - people and retailers are swayed by market leaders. Perhaps no one here, but that’s ok.

If they make an R7 and an M7, sales / profit will dictate whether they develop each of those further. They appeal to different market segments. 

Bring on an R7 in a form factor that others have stated - similar to the r5/r6. Share the design costs with an m7 (which then makes more sense to me, coming 2 years after the m6 Ii). Let people buy the m7 the R7, both or neither.

One does not have to impact the other. If they both make a profit, then Canon will expand their resources to accommodate, or perhaps they don’t need to. But as long as it maintains market share and a profit, they will continue to sell and likely produce more designs.

I agree with the sentiment however, that a separate line of RF-S lenses is less likely, unless perhaps if they go the same route with the lower DSLR models.

Edit: oh and if an m7 doesn’t sell, that doesn’t mean they stop developing the whole line. If they have the right financial information, it just means they conclude there isn’t profitability in a high end M, but the rest of the range can continue to be developed, just no longer the “high end”


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?



It doesn't. Those are two completely different markets with two completely different sets of buyers. But you already know that.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

canonnews said:


> that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.



I remain unconvinced on this purely because of the form factor. As was discussed in the M thread (sorry I know this is the R7), but is the m form factor acceptable to the rebel owners and vice versa?


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

addola said:


> I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.


I think the R7 will be quite expensive, probably similar to the R6 or a bit less
It’s not aimed at beginners but people who want a high performance camera for wildlife especially birders like me and I’d happily pay about the same as a R6 for one


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> It's certainly conceivable that they'd keep both, that's why I said *maybe*. Until this rumour I was pretty firmly in the camp that M wasn't going anywhere any time soon. With that said, I have no more of a crystal ball than anyone else in here.
> 
> How the hell it follows? My logic behind why M *could* disappear is based on a few things:
> 
> ...



1. That rumour has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look "weather sealed".

2. You're mistaking APS-C for "entry level." An R7 or R90 will not be entry level. The entry level into the RF mount will continue to be FF, such as the EOS RP and its eventual successors. EF-S will be gone before EF-M. You can take that to the bank. What was the most recent new EF-S lens? How many have there been in the last decade? Cosmetic updates with the same glass don't count. Only those with new optical formulae or STM AF.

3. Most EF-S and EF-M buyers get a camera, a lens or two, and never "upgrade" to anything else. In a few years (not months, years - as in five or seven or ten) they will think about getting a newer "up-to-date" camera that will be in the same market segment as the older one they're replacing. That is if their phone isn't "good enough" or "better" by then.

4. EF-M isn't going anywhere. Whether there is or is not an R7 or R90 will have absolutely no bearing on how long EOS M remains in Canon's catalog.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

pauhana said:


> End of 2021....ouch.



By which time my 7D Mark II will likely be past half a million shutter actuations or pushing up daisies.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Are there really that many of us?


Nope , can’t be that many of us ‘cause we’re ‘special’ !


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."
> 
> Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras _already handle_ cropped lenses.


Why would you need RF-s lenses ?
The point of an R7 is to use Big telephotos and have the amazing capabilities of the R6 and R5 :
Digic X processor 
DPAF ii 
Animal eye autofocus 
An added bonus is you could use a speed booster ef-rf adapter to use EF lenses like FF


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

padam said:


> It's not so difficult to see that they aren't planning an RF-mount crop sensor camera and 0 crop sensor lenses and as I said, they can make cameras like Nikon's Z50, which isn't that big or heavy. They are slowly migrating their cinema line to RF-mount as well, because it is the logical thing to do.
> 
> No, they haven't done nearly as much as they could with the EF-M. They just don't want to, as the return on development investment is too little and smartphones are slowly eating up this segment.
> As I said, there is plenty of life left in the EF-M they will continue to sell the cheap stuff and new cameras will be coming. Just not in the long-run as cameras are getting newer technology, but also become more and more expensive and one mount is enough to deal with.



EOS M is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth. What planet are you living on where there's no return on investment for Canon with the EOS M system?


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

dick ranez said:


> I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.


Smartphones are the replacement for the Rebel line sadly


----------



## padam (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> EOS M is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth. What planet are you living on where there's no return on investment for Canon with the EOS M system?


I was referring to future development and cameras getting more and more expensive. It makes sense to keep it cheap and old, and provide a higher-end EOS M model for those who demand it, but it's getting more and more isolated as other new products come out that are outside the system.
If most things would remain the same expect the EF-M mount being RF-mount, it would still be popular and it would provide the easier upgrade opportunity just like moving to EF from EF-S. The new lenses will also be compatible with the newer cinema cameras, and a handful of them will stick to APS-C.
Again, I was talking long term, e.g. 3-4 years.
And as I wrote before, it's really not a huge volume of products to discontinue, so by that time they can probably make other (better, but probably more expensive) products to act as substitutes.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I’m hoping the R7 will be basically an R6 with an aps-c sensor and I’d be ok with a similar price to the R6 but a little bit cheaper would be welcome
I shoot Birds in Flight mostly especially small fast birds and use a 7D2 plus EF400 f/5.6 and EF300 f/2.8 and I’d love to buy an R5 which is the best camera in the world for Birds in Flight but the price is a bit too high for my hobby but I could stretch to the price of an R6 and an aps-c R7 would be perfect for my needs


----------



## fingerstein (Sep 2, 2020)

5d mark iii had 25/30 fps în FHD, 7D mark II had 50/60 in 1080p and DPAF. Maybe a R7 would have better video options than R5... and will be less crippled... In my dreams.


----------



## Chig (Sep 2, 2020)

fingerstein said:


> 5d mark iii had 25/30 fps în FHD, 7D mark II had 50/60 in 1080p and DPAF. Maybe a R7 would have better video options than R5... and will be less crippled... In my dreams.


I doubt video will be the main thing with the R7 , stills is probably what most people including me would be buying it for


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Stu_bert said:


> I remain unconvinced on this purely because of the form factor. As was discussed in the M thread (sorry I know this is the R7), but is the m form factor acceptable to the rebel owners and vice versa?



It was to this rebel owner, but this rebel owner was willing to use an adapter and put some huge (by M standards, not by R standards) lenses on his M50.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Chig said:


> Why would you need RF-s lenses ?
> The point of an R7 is to use Big telephotos and have the amazing capabilities of the R6 and R5 :
> Digic X processor
> DPAF ii
> ...



I don't know why you'd need RF-s lenses--unless they want less expensive lenses for APS-C users (which you can do if they don't have to project as big an image circle), but I decided to opine on how they should do it--if they decide to do so.

If it truly becomes a "beginners likely to stay that way are on EF-M, more advanced people are on RF" world, I doubt they'd want an APS-C lens for RF, so I guess we're in partial agreement.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No...I mean this camera would have an R mount *identical* to the R mount on the R, RP, R6, and R5. There's no need to create some sort of RF-S kludge mount, like some people seem to imagine would be happening. Even if they design an R lens with a crop-size image circle, so what? Why bodge it so it won't mount on a full frame camera? That was the point of creating EF-S. But you can ALREADY mount EF-S lenses on an R mount (with the adapter of course); the camera just crops it. So there's simply no need for a special mount to handle RF crop lenses kludged so they won't go onto an R mount.
> 
> (As a side note, non-Canon-brand EF-S lenses, at least some of them, _don't _put my R5 into crop mode automatically. It's kind of cool, actually, it's a "tunnel vision" effect. It's clipped top and bottom just a bit, but not much.)



My Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II does the same thing on my 5D bodies.


----------



## sulla (Sep 2, 2020)

I prefer the idea of keeping the R-line FF and the M-line APSC, to make full use of the smaller sensor size to build smaller lenses with a smaller bayonet to accompany it.

I also don't like the idea of APSC sensors in the R line, because it would quite likely lead to Canon developing RF-S lenses for APSC-R cameras, and this would keep RF-S lens owners in the APSC-ecosystem like it was a system of its own. (like it was hard to upgrade form the APSC EF-S system to the full-frame EF system). Then you can as well keep the EOS-M system.

That having said, as long as Canon doesn't spend effort on developing RF-S lenses, different sensor sizes like APS-C, APS-H, sqare sensors... for the R system won't hurt.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> My Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II does the same thing on my 5D bodies.



Yes, it's Tamron lenses that "don't work" on the R bodies for me too. Of course you can go in and set the crop mode yourself. I actually hope this never gets fixed; I think I might have use for the tunnel vision effect. (And it can be used to explain the concept of image circles and even the limits of IBIS.)


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Sep 2, 2020)

Chig said:


> I doubt video will be the main thing with the R7 , stills is probably what most people including me would be buying it for


Agreed. At that point, whatever websites relay, the decisions are in the hand of Canon anyway.
To my sense, there are only two major targets left for APS-C in the nowadays market :

tough conditions photographers (i.e. nature, wildlife, sports and events) that also want more reach
casual photographers (including travelling light) and beginners (with some focused at home video) that want better than a smartphone's shooting results in a small pack
On one hand, a RF replacement for 7D line could have sense, on the other hand, keep on producing small cameras like EOS Mx kits and small cool lenses can be enough.

Nowadays, for tough purposes, I think only R5 can be seen as a mirrorless replacement for 7Ds, and it's not ideal for everybody (considering both price and specs). Though, Canon is probably listening to the market to see if R5 is enough or if there is still demand for a dedicated "tough" mirrorless APS-C camera to consider.

BTW, I may be missing something but, is there any APS-C tough mirrorless camera in any brand ?...


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> Certainly the RF camera referenced here seems akin to a 7D successor and targeting users who will pay a premium for an APS-C camera, but I struggle to imagine Canon building this camera and then leaving things there. I think if they make one APS-C RF body, there is a good chance that other APS-C RF cameras come along to hit other price points. Canon has pumped R&D into RF, but the price for entry is still on the high side for first-time camera buyers. I could certainly see a lower cost body coming to RF to entice first time buyers to get into the Canon RF ecosystem, much the same way EF-S bodies were an easy transition to EF bodies.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree that Canon wouldn't re-launch lenses in APS-C RF mount - it really depends on their long-term plan, and they certainly re-launched several EF lenses in RF mount. Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents). If Canon can fill out the lower cost/lower size range of RF lenses and shows willingness to create an APS-C RF line at all, then I could see a lot of temptation to move away from EF-S and EF-M entirely. Doing so could potentially fill (to some extent) the "small and light" niche held by EOS-M, and the "entry to mid-level" niche held by EF-S, while creating a more direct transition for those buying entry level bodies to purchase higher-end full frame bodies. It would also reduce the number of mounts they need to manage, and ensure that new entry level cameras are developed on the same platform they've openly admitted to focusing on. The more I think about it, the more I struggle to see Canon continuing to release bodies with mounts where no new glass is coming any time soon.



You seem to be under the impression that a good percentage of folks who buy an APS-C Rebel/xxxD/xxxxD or EOS M camera will want to constantly "upgrade" and "move up" because most of the folks here do. They do not. And there are a lot more of them than there are of us. A LOT more. That's what drives Canon's decisions regarding the EF/EF-S system, the EOS M system, and the EOS R system.

The EOS M system is aimed at a totally different market than where the EOS R system is aimed. Just because a few EOS M cameras wind up in the hands of those who are also interested in multiple bodies and a closet full of lenses doesn't mean that the EOS M system is not primarily aimed at the single camera owner who buys a camera, a kit lens and maybe a telephoto or a fast prime... and that's it for a few years. 

That perfectly explains why the EOS M system seems so "limited" to camera gearheads. It's never been intended for gearheads.

The EOS M system is exactly what the vast majority of ILC buyers in the 21st Century want: a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera that is easy to take along to family get togethers, parties, and trips that has capabilities well beyond what their smartphone cameras can do. 

They're not obsessed with what is coming out in six months. They wouldn't take a 1D X Mark III and an EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II if you gave it to them on permanent loan with the caveat that they couldn't sell it for cash. Most wouldn't even be interested in an R5 size body with a lens the size and weight of a mayonnaise jar. And they certainly don't want to spend anything else on another camera for several years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Philrp said:


> FYI.
> 
> I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford, and it let me buy lenses that could fit any Canon camera, while retaining their value.
> 
> ...



If photography isn't already your living, it probably never will be. Full-time photographers in 2020 compared to 2000 are like harness makers were in 1920 compared to 1900.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.
> 
> Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.
> 
> ...



Doesn't some of that better manufacturing technique get tempered when you insist on making circuitry smaller and smaller on the surface of that wafer, though? It's one thing to say a 20MP FF sensor is cheaper to make today than it was in, say, 2005. But it's quite another thing to say an 80MP FF sensor is almost as cheap to make in 2020 as a 32MP APS-C sensor is. As the size goes down, the reject rate always goes up, and you're right back to the comparative costs of a 20MP FF sensor vs. an 8 MP APS-C sensor back in 2005. In your analogy, you're flicking the same amount of dye at it, but it's dispersing in greater numbers of smaller droplets spread more evenly.


----------



## bbb34 (Sep 2, 2020)

Your sermons are very tiring. Product strategy isn't theology.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I can't believe @Michael Clark isn't all over this thread.
> 
> Let me say that if this comes true, I will happily admit I was wrong.



Give me time. I'm slow and limited in the amount of time I can spend here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Pretty much what I was thinking. I do wonder how they would handle the marketing though, as I'm not sure just labeling the box would be sufficient. Although presumably, most people buying into the RF system would be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that a 15-85 RF Crop lens won't have a 15mm field of view on an R5.



I guess the real question is which is more confusing, the way Canon did EF/EF-S or the way Nikon did FX/DX?

I've seen a lot more complaints about folks who bought a DX lens for their FX camera and then were upset when they discovered the full sensor was not being used than I have from folks who bought an EF-S lens and then couldn't mount it on their 1/5/6-Series camera...

There were, however, folks who were upset when they bought third party APS-C only lenses and used them on their FF Canon bodies. So there's that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I do wonder about the pricing. To be a 7DII replacement, it really has to have all the features of the R5. Would Canon offer all that with an APS-C sensor at a deeply discounted price? The 7DII had a feature set that was superior to the 5DIII (The model that was current when the 7DII was released). If an R5 is not similarly equipped, 7DII users will scream. But if it comes it at say $2,600 (which would still be a huge bargain in comparison to the R5) will people also scream?



We'll bitch, but we'll probably buy it anyway assuming organized sports is still a thing in a post SARS-CoV-2 world.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Maru said:


> so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible



What makes you think a feature rich R7/R90 has to be cheaper than an entry level, no frills RP?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

dick ranez said:


> I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.



EOS M has replaced a lot of Rebel/xx0D sales everywhere except North America and Western Europe. Not so much the xx00D series, which are ridiculously cheap and limited in functionality for markets where most buyers can afford other options.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> Don't do it. Go full frame. The 7D taught me digital photography, the 6D let me know when I was getting better. Love the R but am really looking forward to R5.



Don't limit yourself to only either one. Use both for what each is most useful.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> An R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the RP, R, or the R6. I wouldn't expect it to be.



Probably cheaper than the EOS R was at introduction, but not less than the current price of the EOS R. Maybe a little cheaper or maybe a little more than the R6. A lot might depend on whether it's more of an R7 or an R90 (I suspect the latter, but we'll see).


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 2, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Sure a lot of product design going on here around a CR1 rumor. An R5 with the new AA filter already gives you as much resolution as a 7D II (even though the pixel pitch is 7% coarser) with enormously better AF and a wider field of view so you can find the damn bird. An "R7" with the features dreamed up here would be at least $2500, so what is another 1500 for an R5 if you are already shooing with Big Whites? I think the rumor makes no sense at all and certainly not in the allotted time frame. The 80-100 MP R (R5s?) makes far more sense and that makes the APS-c version even less interesting (and see how that "s" gets confusing). The M line stands on its own as a truly portable ILC system, so this really has no relevance to M other than the note about a "smaller body", which in itself makes no sense for a 7D replacement that has to swing Big Whites.



Though birders seem to be in the majority of 7D Mark II users here, maybe that's only because the primary users of the 7D Mark II have no time to spend on forums such as this because they're spending all of their time editing, posting, and marketing thousands upon thousands of photos of youth/high school/small college sports?


----------



## photonius (Sep 2, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Well, there'd be one big difference. The minimum diameter of such a lens (unless Canon wants to design one with a taper), would be about 77mm. That's based on me eyeballing with a ruler across the 40mm pancake, whose flange is maybe 2mm narrower. So if Canon were to move the M lenses over to an RF mount, they'd end up with what, a bunch of uniform-width lenses with only 58 (or so) mm of innards in them? More likely they'd upgrade them some, maybe wider apertures, maybe fancier IS, or a combo of the two. (with respect to EF-M lens selection, 61 mm imposes a lot of constraints on what Canon can do in a lens; if they *ever* decide on some juicier options, they'll have to relax that limit to do them.)
> 
> Edit to add: I just realized even the pancake 40mm widens just a bit--I was measuring the front side and drawing conclusions about the camera side's size. So I should have said 75mm minimum diameter for an RF lens.)



Don't forget, the EF mount has the same inner diameter as the RF. And looking at the EF-`s 18-55, it has a diameter of 69mm. The mount itself seems to be only about 65, so 65mm diameter should be what one needs at the mount. So, with a small taper, quite compact lenses should be possible.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 2, 2020)

slclick said:


> I don't believe one birth signifies another's death here. I just hope they keep churning out more bodies as it seems the historical use of taking a common camera such as a 5D or 7D series and making the most of it to fit your skill set is not enough for many users which cry for a very particular feature set to do what they need or envision. Therefore, the more the merrier. Who doesn't love more choices?


I would like the choice of having 5D mark5 and 7D mark3 as well.

But it seems that the OVF days are numbered, everyone goes to EVF. Although there is a solution for the mirror, there are elctronic/LCD haf ways mirors.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Sep 2, 2020)

RF Mount + APC + 95 mm filter thread ....This thing is going to have 10+ stops of stabilization lol


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Sep 2, 2020)

This whole APSC M / RF mount topic is fascinating.

I initially thought APSC cameras were smaller in body size, due to the slightly smaller sensor but then I thought back to the 7D MKII I had which was & is a beast of a body and certainly not a light weight, it's so confusing?

Having moved up from the 7D MKII to the R and now to the R5, I have no intention of moving back or having an APSC as a back up but cant see the long term logic in having 2 APSC bodies with different lens mounts as from a development and maintenance perspective it increases costs which in this day and age seems a weird thing for a company to do, unless there is a solid case for increasing sales by doing so.

I can understanding developing an APSC RF mounted camera as this would allow development to be solely on the RF mount and probably drive innovation of both cheaper end and high end RF lenses.

I am certainly not a marketing or engineering expert but there has to be some logic to these rumours, but I'm blowed if I know what it is lol.


----------



## Zee44 (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> Very interesting - maybe there's some truth to the death of EOS-M then. I guess the crux of the question here will be whether or not the "higher margin" nature of the body will put it out of reach for many traditional 7D buyers.
> 
> Any word on a higher resolution full frame body coming with it?


I doubt M series will be canned as this is the entry level to Mirrorless and best selling Mirrorless in the world. According to the rumours the first APSC will not be a budget camera. I think more of a 7D


----------



## jeanluc (Sep 2, 2020)

This is great news for lot of people.....but how about getting some R5's in stock for now before they start announcing more stuff they can't actually deliver please.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 2, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Doubt this will kill EOS-M, unless Canon plan on relaunching all the current EF-M lenses in RP-S mount which is unlikely.
> 
> The RF APS-C camera is a niche product for a small number of people prepared to pay a premium for an APS-C camera to use high quality lenses. Despite what these people think they are in the small minority of Canon's current APS-C customers.
> 
> ...



Likely that Canon could rational their line up (APS & FF) into one ML Mount - meaning an user can buy an APS camera in RF mount - add both APS ML RF glass and FF ML glass followed by upgrade to a FF ML camera.

Remember Nikon (with their wrong turn ML compact line) - CX abandoning this - although they didn't invest in doing any more cameras in the lens two years before they can it.

Also Canon did abandon their previous Mount FD before going for Electronic AF E mount in 1987 - however they have good line up of M cameras but don't see them doing much investment lately of EOS M glass and that could be sign they could be DOA EOS M mount and going to one ML mount.

The camera sector is compressing / restricting for past 4 years and may be still contracting going forward - so camera companies need to rational their line up and make cameras that can sell and also make them money. Also the evolution of the Smart phone into all in one jack of trades device doesn't help and punter can pick up decent mobile like Moto G8 Plus for £250 - good mobile for apps, browsing internet, taking video and stills especially decent for sharing online


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 2, 2020)

Sounds like were see an R7 in 2021 (spiritual successor to the 7D series).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M system is exactly what the vast majority of ILC buyers in the 21st Century want: a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera that is easy to take along to family get togethers, parties, and trips that has capabilities well beyond what their smartphone cameras can do.


The disconnect for me is why do such people (who I agree are in the majority) want an interchangeable lens system at all? They are well catered for by the various high end compacts and bridge cameras which do most things tolerably well and some things extremely well indeed. I wonder if the answer is that there's a bit of the gearhead in all of us...


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 2, 2020)

jeanluc said:


> This is great news for lot of people.....but how about getting some R5's in stock for now before they start announcing more stuff they can't actually deliver please.



Good news, this is a rumor, nothing is announced yet, and even if it eventually will be exactly as-reported, we're at least a year away!


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Likely that Canon could rational their line up (APS & FF) into one ML Mount - meaning an user can buy an APS camera in RF mount - add both APS ML RF glass and FF ML glass followed by upgrade to a FF ML camera.



This really isn't as important to most camera users as some people here think it is.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> I'm not sure I agree that Canon wouldn't re-launch lenses in APS-C RF mount - it really depends on their long-term plan



The long term plan is simple. APS-C will remain for entry-level cameras and the 7D market will be moved onto higher resolution FF cameras that can crop down to a decent resolution at APS-C (ie 50mpx+ sensor). Sure, there's a big price differential at the moment, but that price gap is going to shrink over time. 

There won't be a need for APS-C lenses on the RF mount. The R7 is likely a one-off APS-C body for the RF mount, I doubt there will be an R7 Mark II. There won't be a need.

Even in 2 years time the R5 is going to be cheap enough that potential R7 buyers are going to have a hard think about whether the R5 is going to be better for their needs. 

Yes, it won't be ideal for everyone. But the camera market is shrinking, and Canon have less flexibility to produce individual bodies (and entire ranges of lenses) for a single submarket.

I could be entirely wrong on this - but let's see what happens...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If photography isn't already your living, it probably never will be. Full-time photographers in 2020 compared to 2000 are like harness makers were in 1920 compared to 1900.


Actually, I think harness making in 2020 is probably a pretty good gig. Fortunately for them, everyone in the world isn't walking around with a perfectly suitable harness in their pocket.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 2, 2020)

addola said:


> I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.



Have you not seen what they've been doing with the M series? They're selling very well already. In a difficult market why risk throwing away your profitable product line for something bigger, heavier and potentially less marketable to a large % of buyers.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The long term plan is simple. APS-C will remain for entry-level cameras and the 7D market will be moved onto higher resolution FF cameras that can crop down to a decent resolution at APS-C (ie 50mpx+ sensor). Sure, there's a big price differential at the moment, but that price gap is going to shrink over time.
> 
> There won't be a need for APS-C lenses on the RF mount. The R7 is likely a one-off APS-C body for the RF mount, I doubt there will be an R7 Mark II. There won't be a need.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think you might be correct. Just speaking for myself, I would probably have bought a 7DIII if they made it. Would have actually bought two, one for me and one for my wife. 

But, even with the 5D IV I found that the resolution was sufficient for most of my bird photography and the 7DII was getting less and less use. I'm thinking that with the R5, once the price drops, I can replace both the 5DIV and 7DII and not give up much, plus, with the R, I would have a second body with truly silent shutter when I need that for events. 

I'm not sure if I have sufficient GAS in the tank to buy both an R5 and an R7, especially since I am fast approaching the point where my paying photography work will end and only the hobby photography will remain. In this segment, a large part of the shrinking camera market is comprised of boomers who are aging out of the market. Canon can milk us for a few more years, but eventually, we will be too old and decrepit to carry around these cameras and the M series will become more attractive.


----------



## Philip V (Sep 2, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The disconnect for me is why do such people (who I agree are in the majority) want an interchangeable lens system at all? They are well catered for by the various high end compacts and bridge cameras which do most things tolerably well and some things extremely well indeed. I wonder if the answer is that there's a bit of the gearhead in all of us...



Because the lower end M’s are cheaper than the G7 or the G5, atleast in my part of the world.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> Likely that Canon could rational their line up (APS & FF) into one ML Mount - meaning an user can buy an APS camera in RF mount - add both APS ML RF glass and FF ML glass followed by upgrade to a FF ML camera.
> 
> Remember Nikon (with their wrong turn ML compact line) - CX abandoning this - although they didn't invest in doing any more cameras in the lens two years before they can it.
> 
> ...



If people are happy with a smartphone they will stick with it. Everyone here probably uses one at certain times for certain things, and although I’m not suggesting you can’t take a good picture on any of them, simply some people want to explore photography or vlogging or video in a different way and buy a camera. That market will exist for quite a while. I’m not sure I would try and do sports or wildlife or landscape of the sort I like to take but yes, that market is significant in size.

The number of camera devices sold will shrink to maybe around the pre DSLR or early DSLR market size. But the smartphone market will also plateau and their impact on the camera market will even out. Ergonomics will see to that.

I agree camera makers need to continue to rationalise some lines and more so the models within those lines, still means we can have 4 lines in the Canon business so long as they sell enough in each line for each one to remain profitable or market share. As people stop buying enough, so models will not be refreshed. Canon doesn’t need to refresh the M that much because of the target market not requiring it. Just some niche people here, myself included. But If they can still make a profit from each model, surely they will continue.

Even in the DSLR and equivalent, I suspect as capabilities have reached a certain level, and exceed a lot of use cases, so people upgrading as frequently has diminished. Same in every mature market until a step change occurs.

The interview on Lensrentals stated that lenses take a few years from concept to market, and I would guess broadly bodies are similar. I’m not sure consolidating lines and having more working on it thus producing more RF glass would necessarily grow Canon’s profit margin as significantly as some believe as not everyone wants RF glass even if they have an R body. I wonder how many have traded from their EF to RF glass? I’ve filled in some gaps, but nothing further. Others may be happy to trade. And yes a single range would lower their costs, but they’d lose a significant market for them (the small M class), and I would guess the loss of the M outweighs the savings that a single line would bring them.

As Michael said, the number of people who would have multiple bodies across different segments are a smaller - the gear heads. M doesn’t impact on R and I’m not convinced smartphones impact enough for anyone who would buy an M.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Actually, I think you might be correct. Just speaking for myself, I would probably have bought a 7DIII if they made it. Would have actually bought two, one for me and one for my wife.
> 
> But, even with the 5D IV I found that the resolution was sufficient for most of my bird photography and the 7DII was getting less and less use. I'm thinking that with the R5, once the price drops, I can replace both the 5DIV and 7DII and not give up much, plus, with the R, I would have a second body with truly silent shutter when I need that for events.
> 
> I'm not sure if I have sufficient GAS in the tank to buy both an R5 and an R7, especially since I am fast approaching the point where my paying photography work will end and only the hobby photography will remain. In this segment, a large part of the shrinking camera market is comprised of boomers who are aging out of the market. Canon can milk us for a few more years, but eventually, we will be too old and decrepit to carry around these cameras and the M series will become more attractive.



If the R7 sells in enough numbers there will be another model. Especially if they’re iterating the r5/r6 and the aps c sensor is still around. Will they sell as many as the R7? Doubtful as the R7 as many have said will convince a lot to upgrade, the jump will be significant. A mark ii less so.

I do agree, no need for a specific RF-S glass.

Still not convinced all the rebels will move to the M but it’s not the market I’m in so I can be swayed either way. Part of me feels an 90d in a mirrorless form, bigger than the m6, would convince people to migrate, as would a lower model. And mirrorless would help lower costs. Plus I just wonder how many would look to convert their lenses and their bodies, so would be more likely to use their EF with an adapter which I think they should bundle.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

Philip V said:


> Because the lower end M’s are cheaper than the G7 or the G5, atleast in my part of the world.



Yep, and that’s why I think they should rationalise the m and the G together. One with a fixed zoom, the other with iLC. Same body size, accessories etc.


----------



## photonius (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> It's certainly conceivable that they'd keep both, that's why I said *maybe*. Until this rumour I was pretty firmly in the camp that M wasn't going anywhere any time soon. With that said, I have no more of a crystal ball than anyone else in here.
> 
> How the hell it follows? My logic behind why M *could* disappear is based on a few things:
> 
> ...



To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:

5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987. 
Just think on a computer there were serial ports in the 80s, now there is USB-C. Canon can do much more with the RF protocol in the future, also for cheap consumer lenses, than what is possible with EF. And the consumers are the ones that buy the latest automatic gadgets more than the pros. Just think of an automatic zoom lens with face detection & AF. It doesn't need to be an expensive parafocal lens if focus is adjusted as it zooms. E.G. Mom films a panorama and then zooms in on the kid's face with the press of a button, no more manual zoom.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

sulla said:


> I prefer the idea of keeping the R-line FF and the M-line APSC, to make full use of the smaller sensor size to build smaller lenses with a smaller bayonet to accompany it.
> 
> I also don't like the idea of APSC sensors in the R line, because it would quite likely lead to Canon developing RF-S lenses for APSC-R cameras, and this would keep RF-S lens owners in the APSC-ecosystem like it was a system of its own. (like it was hard to upgrade form the APSC EF-S system to the full-frame EF system). Then you can as well keep the EOS-M system.
> 
> That having said, as long as Canon doesn't spend effort on developing RF-S lenses, different sensor sizes like APS-C, APS-H, sqare sensors... for the R system won't hurt.



Does it matter? If each line makes a profit, I’m still not convinced that these other teams have such an impact on how many lenses or bodies Canon makes and necessarily how much more profits they would generate. 

Outside the enthusiasts and Pros here, are the APS C users likely to buy FF lenses costing twice as much as their DSLR? I’m ignoring the 90d segment.

Will a 90d user splash out double for a R7? Is a 90d user likely to have many (any) ef lenses - thus will a jump to the R require both body and a lens?

I think pricing, size and what segment you’re in atm dictate what you are likely to change to / upgrade to, and I think Canon will still require different lines to support those different requirements. I think a single R FF line would significantly impact their market share and profitability even if they could produce triple the number of rF lenses next year. A full frame for a grand is a massive achievement, still won’t attract a DSLR user with a body costing half of that, or someone who wants smaller and lighter.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

photonius said:


> To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:
> 
> 5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987.
> Just think on a computer there were serial ports in the 80s, now there is USB-C. Canon can do much more with the RF protocol in the future, also for cheap consumer lenses, than what is possible with EF. And the consumers are the ones that buy the latest automatic gadgets more than the pros. Just think of an automatic zoom lens with face detection & AF. It doesn't need to be an expensive parafocal lens if focus is adjusted as it zooms. E.G. Mom films a panorama and then zooms in on the kid's face with the press of a button, no more manual zoom.



Except most of that work is done between the sensor and digic and has less to do with the lens. As Canonnews said, change the lens focus, few bytes of data. I think rf gives them more, I just don’t think we’ve seen that leveraged that much.

Happy for someone to share what you can do with the rF protocol and those extra lines / faster speeds. I think the lens mount has made more of a difference than rf protocol but it would be remiss not to update that as well for future possibilities.

The m6 ii has tracking capabilities as good as the R before the firmware jump. Still pretty good. And digic x have the r5/r6 the jump in af, compared to the r, not the rf protocol and hence why ef lenses do pretty good on the r5. As quick as the rF? I’ve not seen a comparison on a similar lens, ,at e the rf 100-500 will show how much the gap is compared to the 100-400. I just doubt the entry level people would notice. The af itself is the wow, and it will be interesting when this appears on a lower end R model in the future.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 2, 2020)

amorse said:


> It's certainly conceivable that they'd keep both, that's why I said *maybe*. Until this rumour I was pretty firmly in the camp that M wasn't going anywhere any time soon. With that said, I have no more of a crystal ball than anyone else in here.
> 
> How the hell it follows? My logic behind why M *could* disappear is based on a few things:
> 
> ...



No reason for an RF-S mount. The lens could signal its power of coverage to the camera, which would handle the rest, same as Nikon does with DX lenses on FX cameras for F mount.


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Doesn't some of that better manufacturing technique get tempered when you insist on making circuitry smaller and smaller on the surface of that wafer, though? It's one thing to say a 20MP FF sensor is cheaper to make today than it was in, say, 2005. But it's quite another thing to say an 80MP FF sensor is almost as cheap to make in 2020 as a 32MP APS-C sensor is. As the size goes down, the reject rate always goes up, and you're right back to the comparative costs of a 20MP FF sensor vs. an 8 MP APS-C sensor back in 2005. In your analogy, you're flicking the same amount of dye at it, but it's dispersing in greater numbers of smaller droplets spread more evenly.



Yes, every fab generation shrink requires optimisation to drive up the yield especially if they change significantly. But I think those optimisation cycles are quicker than a decade ago. Canon produces machines which can do some chip fabrication, and thus presumably used for some of their stuff, especially sensors.

Not sure whether they fab digic in-house or not.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 2, 2020)

This could be a higher margin but also higher costed chip. We might be getting close to Canon releasing a global shutter sensors ala the Red Sensors. There could be a dual use for this sensor - in a R7 for high speed silent shooting in the wild, and in cinema cameras as a video camera with cooling.

This rumor really only makes sense if the resolution on this sensor is close to the 45 meg range itself. It will need to be a higher resolution to offer 8k when used in cinema. That way you truly are putting more pixels on target.

Smaller sensor = smaller heat as well.

I think the autofocusing for animal eye focus, people eye focus, etc is going to just be a standard thing across the board. Sony's experia phones are the first to do this, but this is a case of building something that others can license themselves. Apple is purported to be including this in the phones on 2021. Camera manufacturers are going to have to offer the R5/R6 focusing system across the board. The R5 system is not all that more advanced than the one on the newest m6II or the 90d when used in liveview. It's just faster. I think this will be the differentiation between models. All of them :in the same generation: will focus just as well and on the same things, it'll just be how many frames per second it can do it.


----------



## mpeeps (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't limit yourself to only either one. Use both for what each is most useful.


Crop sensors are good for reach. That said, when I crop full frame photos for "more reach" the resolution is always better, at least on a screen. Full frame sensors allow 2X the light of cropped sensors, have better DR and ISO performance. The 7D is/was a great camera, but it is no 5Dxxx in any manner other than perhaps a few more frames/second.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> This whole APSC M / RF mount topic is fascinating.
> 
> I initially thought APSC cameras were smaller in body size, due to the slightly smaller sensor but then I thought back to the 7D MKII I had which was & is a beast of a body and certainly not a light weight, it's so confusing?
> 
> ...


I would not expect a single high end aspc camera to be the driver behind cheaper lenses, and certainly not an RF-s Mount. Less expensive (non- L) lenses are coming, but they will all have FF RF mounts. Those lenses are coming whether there is an aspc RF mount camera or not. This camera will not be an inexpensive camera. Not entry level by any means.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 2, 2020)

8k on an aspc camera wouldn’t even be on my radar. Had Canon provided 4K/8k cropped on the R5 there’d be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth worse than in Dante’s inferno.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 2, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Or R90. Time will tell.


True, but the 90D is the closest thing to a 7D3 Canon has given us. I think Canon wants to bring back that 7 line asap. So many people badly wanted a 7D2 successor. It looks like it will be in RF. I really would be surprised, given the rumor of speed and performance in the first RF-C body, if it's not the R7


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 2, 2020)

2nd half of 2021? A lot can change before that. So let's see when it happens if at all this camera comes out ever.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 2, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> True, but the 90D is the closest thing to a 7D3 Canon has given us. I think Canon wants to bring back that 7 line asap. So many people badly wanted a 7D2 successor. It looks like it will be in RF. I really would be surprised, given the rumor of speed and performance in the first RF-C body, if it's not the R7


a year isn’t exactly ASAP, but if Canon has only recently (last year ) awoken to the consumer desire for this camera, then a year is very fast to get it out the door. Probably overly ambitious.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 2, 2020)

photonius said:


> To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:
> 
> 5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987.
> Just think on a computer there were serial ports in the 80s, now there is USB-C. Canon can do much more with the RF protocol in the future, also for cheap consumer lenses, than what is possible with EF. And the consumers are the ones that buy the latest automatic gadgets more than the pros. Just think of an automatic zoom lens with face detection & AF. It doesn't need to be an expensive parafocal lens if focus is adjusted as it zooms. E.G. Mom films a panorama and then zooms in on the kid's face with the press of a button, no more manual zoom.


Canon said they could do more with RF when they introduced it, but as a practical matter, we haven't seem much evidence of that yet.


----------



## jvillain (Sep 2, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> Looks like Canon will build an R7 after all which will please many loyal Canon users



The longer they wait the less pleased they will be as more and more will move on over time. Canon needs to come out with a road map becuas it looks like absolute chaos over there with no one at the wheel and I can't pull the trigger on any thing because I have no idea if Canon will abandon it tomorrow. I have been burned by Canon a few times over the last couple of years and it is losing it's appeal really fast.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 3, 2020)

canonnews said:


> that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.



A wishful thinking at its best ....


----------



## SteveC (Sep 3, 2020)

-pekr- said:


> A wishful thinking at its best ....



Well, I suppose it could be true in some markets. I have no idea how much/little truth there is to that statement in the United States. (But then, in my corner of the world, Nikons far outstrip Canons when I see ILCs, so I can't consider it at all typical.)


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 3, 2020)

photonius said:


> To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:
> 
> 5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987.



It isn't. The EF-M runs at a higher clock rate and a lower voltage than EF (when using native EF-M lenses.)

EF protocols - 1986
EF-M protocols - 2012
RF protocols - 2018

Yes, RF is more advanced. But I doubt that there's any reason to withdraw EF-M right now. After all, if you want a compact camera and compact lenses, EF-M is better than RF.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 4, 2020)

Speaking of size, RP is only 0.6 in wider than the M50, But is is also 0.3 in shorter than the M50. The RP is thicker than the M50 due to bigger grip. But with the lens being mounted on, the difference of thickness becomes meanlingless. In order for the APSC-R to be sucess, Canon has to come up with body and lenses that is comparable in size and price close to the M sytem. RP is already at $1000. The migration path is not as rosy as most of people think. if someone buys a APSC-R body and get the RF lenses, he will end up spending big bug and end up with big size( that he can migrate into the R later). The downward migration is easier. just put the big and expensive R lens on the APSC-R body. But that defeats the goal of having a smaller system. So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Speaking of size, RP is only 0.6 in wider than the M50, But is is also 0.3 in shorter than the M50. The RP is thicker than the M50 due to bigger grip. But with the lens being mounted on, the difference of thickness becomes meanlingless. In order for the APSC-R to be sucess, Canon has to come up with body and lenses that is comparable in size and price close to the M sytem. RP is already at $1000. The migration path is not as rosy as most of people think. if someone buys a APSC-R body and get the RF lenses, he will end up spending big bug and end up with big size( that he can migrate into the R later). The downward migration is easier. just put the big and expensive R lens on the APSC-R body. But that defeats the goal of having a smaller system. So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.



Not all R lenses are humongous, even today. Who knows there may even be a full frame pancake someday.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.


Which makes you wonder why Canon would bother? To suddenly cut off all the existing EF-M users from upgrades and new lenses forcing them to buy an entirely new system just to standardize on an RF mount JUST in case someone in the future buys an RF lens for their APS-C camera and wants to upgrade to full frame? It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not all R lenses are humongous, even today. Who knows there may even be a full frame pancake someday.


Can you name one existing RF Lens that is small?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Can you name one existing RF Lens that is small?



Not humongous is not the same thing as "small", certainly nothing is the size of the EF-M 22. But not all RF lenses are pickle jars either. The 35 mm is fairly compact for a full frame lens: 74.4 mm maximum diameter × 62.8mm extension from flange. Less than 3" wide and much more importantly less than 2 1/2 inches long. Taking 52mm filters.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not humongous is not the same thing as "small", certainly nothing is the size of the EF-M 22. But not all RF lenses are pickle jars either. The 35 mm is fairly compact for a full frame lens: 74.4 mm maximum diameter × 62.8mm extension from flange. Less than 3" wide and much more importantly less than 2 1/2 inches long. Taking 52mm filters.


That is huge by M standard. Also that will be the field of view of 56 mm focal length on APS-C body. Pretty useless focal length.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 4, 2020)

SteveC said:


> For that they'd have to either upsample, or come up with a 45MP APS-C sensor. The 32 MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6-II is _already_ a marvel.



I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.


----------



## Joules (Sep 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.


Well, build around speed sounds like something aimed at the 7D series segment and therefore, a high resolution would be advantageous for use with the large telephoto lenses. Keep in mind the R5 does 20 FPS electronic at 45 MP. You no longer have to chose between high res and high speed with Canon. I think one of the biggest arguments for a 7-series RF APS-C camera would be the shutter. Canon can offer a 12 FPS mechanical FF shutter at the R6 price point. With the lesser weight and travel length of an APS-C shutter, that may well match or exceed the 16 FPS shutter in the 1DX III at far lower cost.

If your comment suggests that you want a lower resolution to get better high ISO performance, you will be disappointed to learn that a higher resolution doesn't negatively impact low light performance in a noteworthy way:





__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

padam said:


> I was referring to future development and cameras getting more and more expensive. It makes sense to keep it cheap and old, and provide a higher-end EOS M model for those who demand it, but it's getting more and more isolated as other new products come out that are outside the system.
> If most things would remain the same expect the EF-M mount being RF-mount, it would still be popular and it would provide the easier upgrade opportunity just like moving to EF from EF-S. The new lenses will also be compatible with the newer cinema cameras, and a handful of them will stick to APS-C.
> Again, I was talking long term, e.g. 3-4 years.
> And as I wrote before, it's really not a huge volume of products to discontinue, so by that time they can probably make other (better, but probably more expensive) products to act as substitutes.



It's just the best selling ILC system in the world, that's all.

At least 95% of EOS M buyers DO NOT CARE about any upgrade opportunity to anything in the EOS R system.
Probably 99.9% of EOS M buyers DO NOT CARE about compatibility with Cine lenses.

95% of potential EOS M buyers DO CARE about price.

You're suggesting Canon abandon their current cash cow in order to give less than 5% of the current pool of EOS M buyers an upgrade opportunity and compatibility with Cine lenses in exchange for forcing higher prices on the other 95%? Is that about right?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

fingerstein said:


> 5d mark iii had 25/30 fps în FHD, 7D mark II had 50/60 in 1080p and DPAF. Maybe a R7 would have better video options than R5... and will be less crippled... In my dreams.



Who buys a 7D to shoot video? Who would consider an R7 or R90 to shoot video? There are other much better options already available. 

The R7/R90 would be a niche product, just like the 7D Mark II is. How many of the YouTube video reviewers even mention the 7D Mark II when comparing any new hybrid camera to existing products?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 4, 2020)

Joules said:


> You no longer have to chose between high res and high speed with Canon.



Even at 12fps mechanical on R5, it costs you some bit depth. 6 fps is the highest mechanical speed for 14 bit RAW shooting on the R5.



Joules said:


> If your comment suggests that you want a lower resolution to get better high ISO performance, you will be disappointed to learn that a higher resolution doesn't negatively impact low light performance in a noteworthy way:



I've seen this theoretical argument many times, but I just have to say my personal experiences doesn't agree. I like the the 6400ISO photos with my 6 years old 7DII 20mp sensor much more than similar shots with the 90D's 32mp sensor (I tried it for a period). Also with the 90D's images downscaled to 20mp. I just couldn't get rid of white pixels in the deep shadows of the 90D images without turning noise reduction much higher up than I like to do. This is for RAW images processed in Adobe Camera Raw.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

jeanluc said:


> This is great news for lot of people.....but how about getting some R5's in stock for now before they start announcing more stuff they can't actually deliver please.



Have you tried ordering an R5 from anyone besides B&H? R5 bodies can be found if one spends enough effort looking for one. It appears B&H took far more pre-orders than they had any hope of actually delivering any time soon. Canon USA does not seem concerned to divert more R5 bodies to B&H at the expense of their direct sales channel and other dealers who Canon likely perceives as following their pricing and marketing guidelines more closely. It's a fairly well known "secret" that B&H will move below Canon's minimum allowable advertised price if you call them and ask for it, either in the form of a lower cash price or in the form of more "freebies" than what they advertise.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Actually, I think you might be correct. Just speaking for myself, I would probably have bought a 7DIII if they made it. Would have actually bought two, one for me and one for my wife.
> 
> But, even with the 5D IV I found that the resolution was sufficient for most of my bird photography and the 7DII was getting less and less use. I'm thinking that with the R5, once the price drops, I can replace both the 5DIV and 7DII and not give up much, plus, with the R, I would have a second body with truly silent shutter when I need that for events.
> 
> I'm not sure if I have sufficient GAS in the tank to buy both an R5 and an R7, especially since I am fast approaching the point where my paying photography work will end and only the hobby photography will remain. In this segment, a large part of the shrinking camera market is comprised of boomers who are aging out of the market. Canon can milk us for a few more years, but eventually, we will be too old and decrepit to carry around these cameras and the M series will become more attractive.



Yeah, if you already have an EOS R to use as a "wide" body in a two camera set-up, then if the price isn't prohibitive the EOS R5 can fairly well replace the 7D Mark II for most of what current users of the 7D Mark II do with it. It would still be nice to get pixel density closer to a 32/80MP (APS-C/FF) sensor, instead of 45/18MP, though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The disconnect for me is why do such people (who I agree are in the majority) want an interchangeable lens system at all? They are well catered for by the various high end compacts and bridge cameras which do most things tolerably well and some things extremely well indeed. I wonder if the answer is that there's a bit of the gearhead in all of us...





Philip V said:


> Because the lower end M’s are cheaper than the G7 or the G5, atleast in my part of the world.



Not only price, but the EOS M series uses APS-C sensors while most high end compacts and bridge cameras use much smaller sensors. With the advances smartphones have made in low light shooting via computational photography, low light performance is more of a concern than it once was for the ultra-small, ultra-lightweight camera market sector.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

mpeeps said:


> Crop sensors are good for reach. That said, when I crop full frame photos for "more reach" the resolution is always better, at least on a screen. Full frame sensors allow 2X the light of cropped sensors, have better DR and ISO performance. The 7D is/was a great camera, but it is no 5Dxxx in any manner other than perhaps a few more frames/second.



When you crop a FF sensor, you throw away all of the "extra light" that was collected by the FF sensor due to its larger surface area. If the pixel pitch is the same and the technology is identical at the photosite (a/k/a pixel well) level, then there's absolutely zero difference between cropping the image from a FF sensor after the fact and using an APS-C sensor at the time of image capture.

The reason most FF sensors have better DR and ISO performance is because their photosites are larger than most APS-C sensors, thus allowing more light to be captured _per photosite_.

But if one takes, for example, an EOS 5Ds (with a low pass filter) and compares it to a 7D Mark II where both have the same pixel pitch and use the same generation of technology, there's no difference between the two apart from autofocus. 

The wider baseline allowed by the wider mirror in FF cameras affects the performance of the AF system with PDAF using reflex mirrors. The narrower baseline required by the narrower mirror in APS-C DSLRs negatively affects AF performance compared to FF DSLRs. But when talking about mirrorless, which does not use microlenses to redirect light from the edges of the lens to AF sensors in the center of the AF focus array the way PDAF systems using reflex mirrors do, the difference between FF and APS-C in AF performance is negligible. That's why the 90D has much better AF in Live View than when using the OVF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

PureClassA said:


> True, but the 90D is the closest thing to a 7D3 Canon has given us. I think Canon wants to bring back that 7 line asap. So many people badly wanted a 7D2 successor. It looks like it will be in RF. I really would be surprised, given the rumor of speed and performance in the first RF-C body, if it's not the R7



In terms of AF performance it will have the best available AF system physically possible, so more like the 7D Mark II in that respect. But in terms of durability and weather resistance due to the materials used for the exterior body as well as shutter durability, it will probably be closer to the 90D or R6. That's the gist of what I got several months ago from the last APS-C R body rumor before this one. Time will tell.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> a year isn’t exactly ASAP, but if Canon has only recently (last year ) awoken to the consumer desire for this camera, then a year is very fast to get it out the door. Probably overly ambitious.



There have been rumors of an APS-C EOS R body pretty much since the EOS R system was introduced in late 2018. It's just that most of the folks here could not hear it because they had already decided in their own minds that *"EOS M is the ONLY APS-C mirrorless system for Canon"* and *"EOS R is a FF ONLY system."*

What makes you think Canon just now "awoke" to consumer desire for this camera?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> It isn't. The EF-M runs at a higher clock rate and a lower voltage than EF (when using native EF-M lenses.)
> 
> EF protocols - 1986
> EF-M protocols - 2012
> ...



And cheaper, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Speaking of size, RP is only 0.6 in wider than the M50, But is is also 0.3 in shorter than the M50. The RP is thicker than the M50 due to bigger grip. But with the lens being mounted on, the difference of thickness becomes meanlingless. In order for the APSC-R to be sucess, Canon has to come up with body and lenses that is comparable in size and price close to the M sytem. RP is already at $1000. The migration path is not as rosy as most of people think. if someone buys a APSC-R body and get the RF lenses, he will end up spending big bug and end up with big size( that he can migrate into the R later). The downward migration is easier. just put the big and expensive R lens on the APSC-R body. But that defeats the goal of having a smaller system. So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.



You are assuming an R7 or R90 will be made with the goal of being smaller and cheaper than the RP. That does not seem to be the primary motivation behind this camera. It seems to be more about giving current 7D MArk II and 90D users a mirrorless option.

The users of the 7D Mark II and 90D are far more concerned with pixel density and speed of performance than they are with size and weight, or with it being cheaper than the EOS RP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> That is huge by M standard. Also that will be the field of view of 56 mm focal length on APS-C body. Pretty useless focal length.



Which is why the EOS M system and any potential APS-C EOS R body have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

As for the 56mm angle of view on FF being "pretty useless", how many millions upon millions of 135 format SLRs do you think were sold with a 50mm or 55mm as the "standard" lens?


----------



## Rocky (Sep 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Which is why the EOS M system and any potential APS-C EOS R body have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
> 
> As for the 56mm angle of view on FF being "pretty useless", how many millions upon millions of 135 format SLRs do you think were sold with a 50mm or 55mm as the "standard" lens?


Please tell me who is still making 55mm lens now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.



If you are comparing a higher density sensor to lower density sensors by pixel peeping at "100%", the higher density sensor will always look worse. This is because "100%" of a 32MP APS-C sensor is a higher magnification than "100%" of a lower resolution 20/24/26 MP APS-C sensor.

If you take a 32MP image and look at it at 100% on the same monitor that you look at a 20MP image at 100%, is the equivalent of looking at an 8x12 inch print from 20 MP sensor and comparing it to a 20x13 inch print from the 32 MP sensor. Of course you are going to be able to see every defect more clearly, just as you would if you magnified the 20 MP image to "160%" to give it the same enlargement ratio that you give the 32MP sensor at "100%"!

The R5 FF 45MP sensor cropped to APS-C is 17.8MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, build around speed sounds like something aimed at the 7D series segment and therefore, a high resolution would be advantageous for use with the large telephoto lenses. Keep in mind the R5 does 20 FPS electronic at 45 MP. You no longer have to chose between high res and high speed with Canon. I think one of the biggest arguments for a 7-series RF APS-C camera would be the shutter. Canon can offer a 12 FPS mechanical FF shutter at the R6 price point. With the lesser weight and travel length of an APS-C shutter, that may well match or exceed the 16 FPS shutter in the 1DX III at far lower cost.



The g-forces at startup and stopping the shutter curtains at the other side of the frame are the same for both a FF and APS-C shutter if one desires both to transit the sensor at the same speed in terms of millimeters per unit time. There are slight advantages to an APS-C shutter due to lower weight in terms of the amount of force needed to accelerate the shutter to the same speed as compared to a full frame shutter. But as Galileo demonstrated by dropping cannonballs of different weight/mass off the tower at Pisa, g-forces due to acceleration are independent of mass. The reason APS-C shutters are cheaper than FF shutters is because they can transit the sensor at a 1.6X lower speed and still have the same transit time as a FF shutter can.

One other thing to note is that the (what we assume is a) cheaper shutter in the R6 is rated at 300,000 actuations whereas the more expensive shutter in the R5 is rated at 500,000 actuations when both can run at the same number of frames per second. For most 7D Mark II type users, shutter durability would be more desirable than a slightly cheaper price. The typical use cases for an R7 would be similar to those for the 7D Mark II: sports, action, and birding. All three of those activities tend to involve high frame counts.

My 5D Mark III that was my primary FF body for five years before I got a 5D Mark IV has barely half as many shutter clicks on it as the 7D Mark II that I've owned for five years has, even though I use the FF bodies for everything I shoot and only use the 7D Mark II as the "long" body in a two camera setup for sports.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If you are comparing a higher density sensor to lower density sensors by pixel peeping at "100%", the higher density sensor will always look worse.



Of course I compared them scaled to same size. This including 100% "pixel peeping" at 20mp. BUT ALSO at actual fullscreen display size on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Even at 12fps mechanical on R5, it costs you some bit depth. 6 fps is the highest mechanical speed for 14 bit RAW shooting on the R5.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this theoretical argument many times, but I just have to say my personal experiences doesn't agree. I like the the 6400ISO photos with my 6 years old 7DII 20mp sensor much more than similar shots with the 90D's 32mp sensor (I tried it for a period). Also with the 90D's images downscaled to 20mp. I just couldn't get rid of white pixels in the deep shadows of the 90D images without turning noise reduction much higher up than I like to do. This is for RAW images processed in Adobe Camera Raw.



If you are processing raw Canon image files with Adobe, there's your problem, particularly with regard to noise reduction. Try Capture One or even Digital Photo Professional for much better conversion of Canon raw image files. Or even use third party NR products, such as Noise Ninja, after the fact of raw conversion. Adobe hasn't improved their noise reduction algorithms for processing raw files from Canon cameras for years (We won't even begin to talk about color demosaicing, which is even worse).


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Please tell me who is still making 55mm lens now.



Close:




Close enough:




Not that there is any material difference between 50mm and 55mm, seeing as how lens focal lenses are never that exact. A lens marketed as a 35mm lens could very easily have an actuial FL of 33.33333mm which translates to 50mm at 1.5X. Lenses marketed as 50mm lenses can have actual FLs of 47-53mm.

Zeiss 55mm for Sony E-mount:




Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 for a variety of mounts including Canon EF:




Zeiss presents this one as "The Standard Lens" on their own website.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.



The 12-bit limitation is only when using the electronic shutter at all frame rates.

For H+ (high speed continuous shooting plus) at 12 fps with mechanical shutter or electronic first curtain, the limitation is 13-bits.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The g-forces at startup and stopping the shutter curtains at the other side of the frame are the same for both a FF and APS-C shutter if one desires both to transit the sensor at the same speed in terms of millimeters per unit time. There are slight advantages to an APS-C shutter due to lower weight in terms of the amount of force needed to accelerate the shutter to the same speed as compared to a full frame shutter. But as Galileo demonstrated by dropping cannonballs of different weight/mass off the tower at Pisa, g-forces due to acceleration are independent of mass. The reason APS-C shutters are cheaper than FF shutters is because they can transit the sensor at a 1.6X lower speed and still have the same transit time as a FF shutter can.
> 
> One other thing to note is that the (what we assume is a) cheaper shutter in the R6 is rated at 300,000 actuations whereas the more expensive shutter in the R5 is rated at 500,000 actuations when both can run at the same number of frames per second. For most 7D Mark II type users, shutter durability would be more desirable than a slightly cheaper price. The typical use cases for an R7 would be similar to those for the 7D Mark II: sports, action, and birding. All three of those activities tend to involve high frame counts.
> 
> My 5D Mark III that was my primary FF body for five years before I got a 5D Mark IV has barely half as many shutter clicks on it as the 7D Mark II that I've owned for five years has, even though I use the FF bodies for everything I shoot and only use the 7D Mark II as the "long" body in a two camera setup for sports.


Hmmm. G forces are not quite independent of mass unless the physics of:
F = M x A. (Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration) Is incorrect.
The old Galileo thing is that the rate of acceleration of any mass under the force of gravity is the same. That does not mean the force acting on the mass is the same.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> When you crop a FF sensor, you throw away all of the "extra light" that was collected by the FF sensor due to its larger surface area. If the pixel pitch is the same and the technology is identical at the photosite (a/k/a pixel well) level, then there's absolutely zero difference between cropping the image from a FF sensor after the fact and using an APS-C sensor at the time of image capture.
> 
> The reason most FF sensors have better DR and ISO performance is because their photosites are larger than most APS-C sensors, thus allowing more light to be captured _per photosite_.
> 
> ...



Amplifying (I believe) on your point here: I've seen people say something like "FF allows more light" which has always bothered me. It lets in more total light, sure, but it's spread out more, too, so the amount of light hitting a particular part of the sensor (inside the would-be cropped area) is _the same_. That light that hits near the outside of the FF image circle doesn't do a damned thing for the pixels near the center of the sensor. A pixel is not affected at all how many other pixels are around; it _is_ affected by its own size, for the same reason astronomers like wider and wider mirror (or objective lens) telescopes.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 4, 2020)

Rocky said:


> Please tell me who is still making 55mm lens now.



Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 - and it's an absolute cracker of a lens.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 5, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Zeiss presents this one as "The Standard Lens" on their own website.



Thanks for introduce me to these lenses. The Sigma actually is a an APS-C lens not for FF. The Zeiss Sonnar is deigned for Sony E mount( original for APS-C). The Nikon is a 0.95 with a $8000 price tag. The Zeiss Otus is 1.4 with $4000 price tag. All the later three are extra ordinary design to obtain superior images quality, worth the brand of Zeiss. Due to smaller ideal throat opening( Sony) or clearance of the mirror box ( Sonnar and Otus) with fast aperture, all four have to use reverse telephoto design and bump the focal length to 55mm. Remember the Zeiss Biotar for Exakta and Practica?? That is also 55mm. Due to clearance of the mirror box. It is the same situation.
Just out of curiosity, what is the percentage of your photo are taken with 55mm lens?


----------



## Joules (Sep 5, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The g-forces at startup and stopping the shutter curtains at the other side of the frame are the same for both a FF and APS-C shutter if one desires both to transit the sensor at the same speed in terms of millimeters per unit time. There are slight advantages to an APS-C shutter due to lower weight in terms of the amount of force needed to accelerate the shutter to the same speed as compared to a full frame shutter. But as Galileo demonstrated by dropping cannonballs of different weight/mass off the tower at Pisa, g-forces due to acceleration are independent of mass. The reason APS-C shutters are cheaper than FF shutters is because they can transit the sensor at a 1.6X lower speed and still have the same transit time as a FF shutter can.
> 
> One other thing to note is that the (what we assume is a) cheaper shutter in the R6 is rated at 300,000 actuations whereas the more expensive shutter in the R5 is rated at 500,000 actuations when both can run at the same number of frames per second. For most 7D Mark II type users, shutter durability would be more desirable than a slightly cheaper price. The typical use cases for an R7 would be similar to those for the 7D Mark II: sports, action, and birding. All three of those activities tend to involve high frame counts.
> 
> My 5D Mark III that was my primary FF body for five years before I got a 5D Mark IV has barely half as many shutter clicks on it as the 7D Mark II that I've owned for five years has, even though I use the FF bodies for everything I shoot and only use the 7D Mark II as the "long" body in a two camera setup for sports.


I am not sure if I understand you here correctly.

Looking at a single blade on the shutter curtain, its width will be 1.6 times greater for a FF shutter compared to APS-C. If the other two dimensions remain the same, the mass will be 1.6 as great too.

To accelerate or decelerate the two shutter blades with their different masses to the same velocity v, I can either have the time it takes to reach v the same, requiring me to apply a greater force to the FF shutter, or have the applied force the same, requiring a greater amount of time for the FF shutter to reach this speed. 

v = a*s where a=F*m

You even mention this. Why does it matter that the acceleration my be the same? Doesn't one take more powerful motors and more energy? 

And for the two shutters traveling at the same speed, an APS-C one will complete a full transition of the sensor in 1/1.6 the amount of time. So if that were the only constraint in FPS, it could achieve a framerates that is 1.6 times as high.

I am not disagreeing with you here. Just not quite seeing what you wanted to point out. Maybe I got something wrong? 

All I was going for with my point was this:

A mechanical shutter still has an advantage over electronic ones. An APS-C sensor imposes lesser challenges when driving the shutter to high fps. The M6 II already beats the R6 and R5 on paper with 14 vs 12 FPS, although at a lesser shutter rating (100,000). Leading me to believe that if they were to design an APS-C camera with RF design constraints, rather than EF-M Iines, they may well match or exceed the 16 FPS speed found in the 1DX III while maintaining a price that is not too far off what the 7D III crowd wants.

Achieving this same speed in the truly high res R (80 MP+) is unlikely to be achieved at this price point. Just in terms of electronic speed, it could match an R7 and outperform it in all other regards. But I think there may well be a reason to introduce an APS-C camera to the RF system because that specific niche that wants reach and speed is still best served by such a camera, unless the corresponding market is also willing to deal with pricing at or above the R5 level.


----------



## Joules (Sep 5, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Even at 12fps mechanical on R5, it costs you some bit depth. 6 fps is the highest mechanical speed for 14 bit RAW shooting on the R5.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this theoretical argument many times, but I just have to say my personal experiences doesn't agree. I like the the 6400ISO photos with my 6 years old 7DII 20mp sensor much more than similar shots with the 90D's 32mp sensor (I tried it for a period). Also with the 90D's images downscaled to 20mp. I just couldn't get rid of white pixels in the deep shadows of the 90D images without turning noise reduction much higher up than I like to do. This is for RAW images processed in Adobe Camera Raw.


But you usually don't shoot high FPS scenes at ISO 100. So you're loosing DR anyway, so that slightly reduced Bitrate should not translate to a real world disadvantage, right?

As for the low light performance of higher resolutions, that is nothing purely theoretical. I linked you to a nice demonstration where you can compare same sized sensors with different resolutions at the same magnification to see that the M6 II beats the 80D and the R5 and R6 are so similar, that I find myself flip flopping between which one looks better when starting at them for a while.

Unless you also set up a studio comparison with identical lighting conditions and settings to make your personal observations, any differences you see are hard to blame on the resolution differences. Of course, you have to compare at the same magnification, otherwise you make a comparison where two variables are changed. But you seem aware of that.

But you also say you like the 7D II results more than those from *similar* 90D shots. As light intensity is the greatest influence on noise, and it is not a linear one, you can't make proper comparisons with similar conditions. They have to be identical. As for white dots, that sounds odd. That's a type of noise I would expect for long exposures, or really hot conditions. As Michael pointed out, it may also be a technical difference.

Anyway, as I see it, an R7 only makes sense if it can make the most out of long lenses. So it must have a sufficient pixel density to exceed the R5 and compete with the eventual R5's / R3 high MP FF body.


----------



## Chig (Sep 5, 2020)

fingerstein said:


> 5d mark iii had 25/30 fps în FHD, 7D mark II had 50/60 in 1080p and DPAF. Maybe a R7 would have better video options than R5... and will be less crippled... In my dreams.


Why would you want a crop sensor camera for video ?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> But you usually don't shoot high FPS scenes at ISO 100. So you're loosing DR anyway, so that slightly reduced Bitrate should not translate to a real world disadvantage, right?



I not only sometimes shot action/sequences with 100 ISO, but my 7DII I have permanently set to highest framerate. When not shooting action/sequences, I'm usually bracketing where it too find it practical/best to shot at high framerate.



Joules said:


> Unless you also set up a studio comparison with identical lighting conditions and settings to make your personal observations, any differences you see are hard to blame on the resolution differences.





Joules said:


> As for white dots, that sounds odd. That's a type of noise I would expect for long exposures, or really hot conditions. As Michael pointed out, it may also be a technical difference.



I have 6 years experience with the 7DII. Never seen that kind of "dots" with my 7DII. I was shooting several sessions with the 90D over a couple of weeks, and the dots were consistent in high iso shots from all sessions. I don't need a studio-comparison on top of that to feel comfortable about making a conclusion for my kind of use. However as Michael points out, using other RAW conversion software than Adobe might make a difference. I don't know.



Joules said:


> Anyway, as I see it, an R7 only makes sense if it can make the most out of long lenses. So it must have a sufficient pixel density to exceed the R5 and compete with the eventual R5's / R3 high MP FF body.



For me it's also a matter of price - and size+weight of normal and wideangle zooms. I'm never going to buy a camera priced like an R5, and don't want a bigger/heavier "casual/everyday kit" to carry around than I have now.


----------



## Joules (Sep 5, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I have 6 years experience with the 7DII. Never seen that kind of "dots" with my 7DII. I was shooting several sessions with the 90D over a couple of weeks, and the dots were consistent in high iso shots from all sessions.


This has me interested. Would you mind sharing a shot that shows the phenomenon? And the situation it was taken under, if one would like to replicate it?


----------



## Kit. (Sep 5, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Even at 12fps mechanical on R5, it costs you some bit depth. 6 fps is the highest mechanical speed for 14 bit RAW shooting on the R5.


Do you realize that 13 bits per pixel on a 40MP-ish sensor are about the same as 14 bits per pixel on a 20MP-ish sensor, when it comes to the actual luminous exposure information being passed?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> This has me interested. Would you mind sharing a shot that shows the phenomenon? And the situation it was taken under, if one would like to replicate it?



Handheld "nightshot" from an evening walk. Remember nothing special about the situation to mention.


__
https://flic.kr/p/2iS86HL

Virtually uncropped. Scaled down from 6960x4590 to 3880x2559 if you zoom into full size (So 10 megapixel-ish).
5000 ISO.

Some overall and shadow pushing in post, but nothing I haven't done often before:

CR exposure:
Overall +0.75 stop
Shadow +62 whatever-unit-it-is

Some noise reduction in both CR and PS:
CR noise:
NR 25
Detail 71
Color NR 25
PS noise:
17% NR in Smart Sharpening

I see the light dots/grains all over in shadows. Some more bright than others, but they annoy me. Look f.ex. around the standing bike or in lower part of blue sky.


----------



## Joules (Sep 5, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Handheld "nightshot" from an evening walk. Remember nothing special about the situation to mention.
> 
> 
> __
> ...


Thanks a lot for sharing.

You mention using Smart Sharpening. That is a deconvolution algorithm. Those are inherently prone to introducing noise and certain visual artifacts. The noise you point out looks like what I am getting sometimes when using Smart Sharpening. I would guess that on an image that already has pixel manipulating effects like sharpening, clarity and certain kinds of NR applied, this becomes more noticeable. That would both make sense and be in line with my limited experience with the tool.

In any case I am seeing similar results with my 24 MP 80D sometimes. You are claiming this is less of an issue with the 20 MP 7D II right? I am not sure what's the proper way to apply deconvolution to a noisy image when the intent is to also downscale it (for actual use or comparison with a lower resolution sensor). Deconvolution amplifies noise. But downsampling before deconvoluting seems counter intuitve and also may apply a form of sharpening in itself (Not desireable for deconvolution) depending on the algorithm.

Interesting point for sure. But nothing I can currently spend time on experimenting with.


----------

