# Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 10, 2022)

> It looks like we have a few surprises on our hands from Canon, as they gear up to announce new products this month, which is another pleasant surprise.
> Canon will announce the long rumoured Canon EOS R7, a camera we leaked the specifications on yesterday. There will also be a second camera, the Canon EOS R10. We’re going to assume that the Canon EOS R10 is an APS-C camera that will likely take the place of the EOS M5/EOS M6 Mark II. It was rumoured quite some time ago that Canon would announce multiple APS-C RF mount cameras.
> Canon will also announce a couple of RF-S lenses.
> Canon will announce the following gear...



Continue reading...


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

R10! Interesting.. 

I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for! 

Time to save££££££!


----------



## H. Jones (May 10, 2022)

R10 is a nice surprise! If the price and size is right I could totally see myself picking up a small and "cheap" R10 for travel when I don't need the R5. The RF 16mm and 50mm would be perfect for a little camera. Maybe even pick up a 18-150 if the size is right.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2022)

The M5 has a viewfinder but the M6 doesn't. So will the R10 come with one or not? There's also the possibility of the R10 being a "rangefinder form factor" with that kind of viewfinder.


----------



## Groundhog (May 10, 2022)

The price of the R10 is going to be interesting - if it is cheap enough it could be the replacement of the Rebel-/Kiss-/xy0D-Line.


----------



## janhalasa (May 10, 2022)

If they launch a new platform with 18-45 and 18-150, it's probably not going to be interesting anytime soon. I'm afraid they will continue with 18-200 and 18-300


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> R10! Interesting..
> 
> I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for!
> 
> Time to save££££££!


That was not the best naming system. 
The 90D has to be the end of the line since they ran out of numbers.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 10, 2022)

I posted this line-up as a suggestion in September 2021 (and even earlier) in another thread: 



> In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:
> 
> R10: crop camera
> R9: RP replacement - entry level
> ...


R5s is surely coming at one point, so will the R1. After the upcoming announcement we are almost there!  For four years in the making and two of those years being hit with the pandemic, it already looks like a great line-up. 

Just missing the R9/ R8... the latter one would attract me


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M has everything we need" fraction!


Canon could offer a service to rehouse RF lenses to EF-M and visa versa,


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That was not the best naming system.
> The 90D has to be the end of the line since they ran out of numbers.


Well, worked out quite well in the end since its very unlikely more DSLRs will be made. Canon could still make a 91D or 90d Mk II to have enough names at hand.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon could offer a service to rehouse RF lenses to EF-M and visa versa,


I don't know much about engineering lenses but I think it's not that simple!


----------



## samh004 (May 10, 2022)

Not interested in the lenses, but certainly an APS-C body would be interesting for the lenses I already have, like the 100-500 

More MP and extended reach without a TC is just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## Besisika (May 10, 2022)

janhalasa said:


> If they launch a new platform with 18-45 and 18-150, it's probably not going to be interesting anytime soon. I'm afraid they will continue with 18-200 and 18-300


I am very much interested in 18-45. Hope it is small. That is my range for shooting handheld video.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I don't know much about engineering lenses but I think it's not that simple!


It is.
That is how Sigma and Tamron make one set of lenses for multiple mounts.
Canon does that with EF/PL cinema lenses


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Well, worked out quite well in the end since its very unlikely more DSLRs will be made. Canon could still make a 91D or 90d Mk II to have enough names at hand.


Sure but the 90D could have just been the 10D Mark 9


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon could offer a service to rehouse RF lenses to EF-M and visa versa,


Unfortunately, due to the back focus distance of EF-M lenses, there is no "easy' way to move EF-M lenses to the RF Mount without changing elements.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is.
> That is how Sigma and Tamron make one set of lenses for multiple mounts.
> Canon does that with EF/PL cinema lenses


Maybe it is but only with lenses that were designed with this in mind. I don't think Canon planned and therefore designed with this in mind.


----------



## bbasiaga (May 10, 2022)

So looks like they pushed the R7 announcement up again? Was March, then August, now May? Guess we'll have to wait and see. 

I do hope someone makes an EF-M to RF adapter. It'll need optics, so it can be a speed booster as well. But just a plain optical adapter would be nice as well. Don't want to re-buy my EF-m stuff in RF once/if my M50 stops working. Knew this day was coming. Loved the M. Will miss it. 



Brian


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That was not the best naming system.
> The 90D has to be the end of the line since they ran out of numbers.


True.. but starting at R10 lines you up for a good 20 or 30 years of cameras at least! By which time the system might be outdated.


----------



## AlP (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction


Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.

For those (like me) who sometimes need a very small and lightweight ILC, the R10 would have to be extremely small and the rumoured RF-S lenses would have to be smaller than the current non-L RF lenses to replace the M-system. I obviously don't have an R10, but I have an RF 50 1.8 and an EF-M 22 2 in front of me. Lenses the size of the RF 50 are too large for the specific purposes I use them.
Might well be that I'll have to replace the M6 with a smartphone once it breaks  Or use a camera from another brand, if such cameras still exist then


----------



## noname (May 10, 2022)

What about of an 1,5x crop factor for the new Canon APS-C R-line?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

noname said:


> What about of an 1,5x crop factor for the new Canon APS-C R-line?



Unlikely. That won't make it fully compatible with EF-S lenses.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

AlP said:


> Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.
> 
> For those (like me) who sometimes need a very small and lightweight ILC, the R10 would have to be extremely small and the rumoured RF-S lenses would have to be smaller than the current non-L RF lenses to replace the M-system. I obviously don't have an R10, but I have an RF 50 1.8 and an EF-M 22 2 in front of me. Lenses the size of the RF 50 are too large for the specific purposes I use them.
> Might well be that I'll have to replace the M6 with a smartphone once it breaks  Or use a camera from another brand, if such cameras still exist then


... Or wait for smaller (but slower) RF-S lenses. Until then M6 will fulfill its duty.


----------



## leadin2 (May 10, 2022)

But canon R10 is either a document scanner or battery grip for R5/R6 when I googled.
Regardless, I hope they will release an APSC R 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which used to be my all time favorite on both ef-s and ef-m systems.


----------



## John Wilde (May 10, 2022)

The model name R10 is similar to M100. Perhaps the R10 will be a really small no-viewfinder model.


----------



## SebastiaoSal (May 10, 2022)

I wouldn’t mind an R10 with a pancake 24mm as a walk around kit but most likely will end up with an RP II and a 35mm F/1.8.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 10, 2022)

If the RF-S 18-150 is based on the EF-M 18-150 design, it will be a great travel lens. I was definitely impressed by the EF-M version I got with the M5.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 10, 2022)

That 18-45 looks like replacement to 18-55 and if R10 is indeed crop entry level body then that would be kitted with it while R7 might get longer zoom kit.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

I hope the lenses will be a bit higher quality than EF-M variants but i doubt it.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 10, 2022)

The nomenclature for the XXD line evolved in a seamless manner as opposed to the XXXD/Rebel naming schemes, methinks the R10+ would make sense as well and encompass both the Rebel and M systems. 
I'd buy into a smaller body which took my RF glass for a more compact bag overall if it had a VF, ala M5. As for crop 'reach', there are thousands of posts, a few of which have the science to back what equivalence truly is and how sensor type and size will impact the image rez.

I could see the M6ll sensor becoming the new 18mp of yesteryear for a new line of entry level R bodies, it would make many cringe here (even though they aren't the market) and make Canon a boatload of money.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> The model name R10 is similar to M100. Perhaps the R10 will be a really small no-viewfinder model.


My guess would be R10 is the first in an enthusiast line like the xxD DSLRs.

Canon still has the M for now. If they decide to demarket that, they could go with Rxxx (or Rxxxx) for its replacement.


----------



## [email protected] (May 10, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> R10! Interesting..
> 
> I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for!
> 
> Time to save££££££!



Seems good to me - R7 seems like a top end ML version of 7D, R10 middle ground in line with A6400 & Z70. 

Bit of flak and fall out of Canon abandoning their existing APS ML line (same with Nikon on it's ill fated Nikon 1 adventure)

Good bring on the two APS ML's and for me hopefully give Nikon kick up back side for them to produce an equivalent to R7 and update to D500 in ML format.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 10, 2022)

R10 would have been a great name for the second RP. Bottom of the line but still capable and a big upgrade for any xxD or xxxD body owner.


----------



## Aaron D (May 10, 2022)

A little off-topic, but I like the R8 or R9 idea. Though I'm thinking rangefinder style with a viewfinder built in, and full frame. Same internals as an R5 so it could be my travel camera AND a backup to the R5. I hate having to have two identical bodies; one sitting around gathering dust, waiting for me to drop the other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

AlP said:


> Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.


Indeed. I mean, the prophet may proclaimed the death of the M system, but no one really knows what Canon has planned. The rumored R7 and R10 do not seem to be replacements for the M200 and M50.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

No CR# rating for this. EDIT: now there is.

Three observations:

Following CRguy's announcement that he was selling the site, traffic and new members seemed to drop significantly.
Recently, there have been many front-page posts and statements that are rather sensational, site traffic seems increased and I see many new members posting.
CRguy has not publicly reversed his decision to sell the site, and it's probably harder to sell and/or get top price for a site with declining stats.
It's possible that those observations are entirely unrelated.


----------



## Kit. (May 10, 2022)

So, the old EF-S 15-85 would still be the best lens for those who prefer a 24mm equivalent zoom (and cannot afford the 14-35L)?


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

I'll take an R10 please! Sounds exactly like the second body I've been waiting for. I thought it was a couple years off. But with this rumor, it sounds more like a couple months! Could be a Day 1 buy for me... if the specs are just right.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 10, 2022)

Did everyone miss the huge announcement/rumour here, the replacement for EF-S lenses is here! It looks like RF-S lenses 'are/will be a thing'... 

The Canon RF-S 18-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 sound like typical kit lens zooms.

The questionable RF 16mm f/2.8 will make a decent 24mm f/4.5 equivalent on APSC, and the periphery won't matter because it will be all cropped away! 

If the RF-S bodies can run EF-S lenses with an adapter, that provides even more options!


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

The wrong numbers are being added. There needs to be a 1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> The wrong numbers are being added. There needs to be a 1.


I'm sure there will be. In the meantime, there's a 3.


----------



## stevelee (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction!


Clearly the M series will be discontinued at some point between now and when the sun becomes a red giant. I think closer to the former than the latter is a safe bet.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Did everyone miss the huge announcement/rumour here, the replacement for EF-S lenses is here! It looks like RF-S lenses 'are/will be a thing'...
> 
> The Canon RF-S 18-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 sound like typical kit lens zooms.
> 
> ...



True excitement for those who have yet to join the forum.
I wonder how much true excitement there is for the release of an R10 and RF-S 18-45mm kit lens with the members here. How many forum members will pre-order because they just have to have it.


----------



## fastprime (May 10, 2022)

Super interesting about the R10. I'd love a compact RF mount camera for quick outings/snapshots/hiking that I can use with my RF Ls and STMs. Not sure if this will be that, but one can hope.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure there will be. In the meantime, there's a 3.


Fear cripples me and I am unable to put it in the cart, if I buy one the next day they will release a 1.
In reality I will be waiting another year or two.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Fear cripples me and I am unable to put it in the cart, if I buy one the next day they will release a 1.
> In reality I will be waiting another year or two.


I think the big question is will it be high MP and slower, or lower MP and faster? The R1 likely will be substantially more expensive. I have been quite happy with the R3, compared to my 1D X.


----------



## David render (May 10, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> R10! Interesting..
> 
> I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for!
> 
> Time to save££££££!


Could as easy go ) R11, 12, 13. If they plan to run with it long term. Then R100, R101, R102, R1000, R1001. R1002.


----------



## scyrene (May 10, 2022)

I should be pleased, I guess. Been waiting to replacd my DSLRs for a few months, neither the R5 nor R6 was quite right - the former too expensive, the latter a touch too low res. Two or three years ago I seriously considered the 90D. But there's two things we don't know that are key for me - price, and availability.

An observation: if this comes to pass, Canon will have done a good job keeping information from leaking; if it's announced less than a month away. We had nothing concrete even a few weeks ago.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 10, 2022)

David render said:


> Could as easy go ) R11, 12, 13. If they plan to run with it long term. Then R100, R101, R102, R1000, R1001. R1002.


That would be a smart move. I mean, look at all the work Canon had to do—new mount, new bodies, new lenses—when they needed a successor to the 90D. ;-)


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

David render said:


> Could as easy go ) R11, 12, 13. If they plan to run with it long term. Then R100, R101, R102, R1000, R1001. R1002.


Could do! That’s like 2000 years of the RF system though! Haha


----------



## InchMetric (May 10, 2022)

H. Jones said:


> R10 is a nice surprise! If the price and size is right I could totally see myself picking up a small and "cheap" R10 for travel when I don't need the R5. The RF 16mm and 50mm would be perfect for a little camera. Maybe even pick up a 18-150 if the size is right.


I have an RP for this. It cost $400 net as a Canon refurb after selling the f4 L zoom in the refurb kit. It's my placeholder until the tiny finderless Sigma equivalent. Would like a 35-40mm f2 instead of the RF50f1.8, but that works fine for now for the kitchen counter family camera.


----------



## Kharan (May 10, 2022)

Does this mean the 18-45mm will only cover the APS-C image circle? Oh man, I was so hyped for it, thinking it'd be for 35mm


----------



## InchMetric (May 10, 2022)

SebastiaoSal said:


> I wouldn’t mind an R10 with a pancake 24mm as a walk around kit but most likely will end up with an RP II and a 35mm F/1.8.


The existing RF16mm would do just that, and I suspect they planned it that way.


----------



## bergstrom (May 10, 2022)

still no RP2 news


----------



## SHAMwow (May 10, 2022)

I'm curious if people will complain about how these are segmented when they release. Everyone says they're chomping at the bit on here, but if its not an R6 for $1200 I can already see the "cripple" complaints.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction!


You'll know for sure if they also announce a RF to EF-M mounting adapter. But, I do agree with you.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 10, 2022)

wsmith96 said:


> You'll know for sure if they also announce a RF to EF-M mounting adapter. But, I do agree with you.


Such an adapter would be extremely difficult to build for physical/mechanical reasons alone. Also, consumers who buy M cameras don’t think in terms of upgrading and compatibility. That’s just for enthusiast geeks like us. Finally, EF-M lenses are very inexpensive, compared with the high end RF glass that many enthusiasts go for. All those factors considered, I highly doubt Canon will ever produce an EF-M to RF adapter.

Maybe third parties will look into it, although they would face the same physical constraints.


----------



## jam05 (May 10, 2022)

The R10 would have to be considerably smaller than the curent R series cameras in order replace the M6 or M50. With smaller EVF protrusion. As of this moment any close to an R5 size will not cut it.


----------



## jam05 (May 10, 2022)

The R10 would have to be considerably smaller than the curent R series cameras in order replace the M6 or M50. With smaller EVF protrusion. As of this moment any close to an R5 size will not cut it


----------



## jam05 (May 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Did everyone miss the huge announcement/rumour here, the replacement for EF-S lenses is here! It looks like RF-S lenses 'are/will be a thing'...
> 
> The Canon RF-S 18-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 sound like typical kit lens zooms.
> 
> ...


Size, weight, and gimbal calibration is a major consideration. The lens by itself doesn't function alone. In order to replace an M50 or the M6 there is a much to wait and see before a conclusion can be made.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 10, 2022)

Some thoughts...

It was suggested before Canon might make a crop RF mount camera to see whether customers would prefer it over the EOS M line. If it doesn't catch, Canon can scrap it. The crop lenses would be shared with the R7, and a cheap redesign of existing EF-S / EF-M lenses, saving costs.

The 24 MP sensor could be recycled from the 850D or R3, saving on cost. It would have a reach advantage over [higher pixel density than] the R5, and so offer some benefit.

As a speculation, Canon might have customer feedback showing interest in a crop RF camera, either as an addition to existing FF RF camera, or as offering an upgrade path to new customers (= having no camera, or interested in switching from other manufacturers).


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

AlP said:


> Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.
> 
> For those (like me) who sometimes need a very small and lightweight ILC, the R10 would have to be extremely small and the rumoured RF-S lenses would have to be smaller than the current non-L RF lenses to replace the M-system. I obviously don't have an R10, but I have an RF 50 1.8 and an EF-M 22 2 in front of me. Lenses the size of the RF 50 are too large for the specific purposes I use them.
> Might well be that I'll have to replace the M6 with a smartphone once it breaks  Or use a camera from another brand, if such cameras still exist then


Take goo care of it and it will likely last longer than you do


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2022)

I'm interested to see these products in person... not because I intend to buy them but because I think they are important to Canon's future. The R3, R6 and R7 made everything else in the R and EF/EF-S systems look dated. I remember being impressed when the M6 II came out (compared to the original EOS R), but by that time I was already thinking of exiting the EOS M system. Canon doesn't need a lot of RF-S lenses, but I'd to see something akin to what they have for the EOS M (add a ultrawide zoom and a longer telephoto). I would also like to see at 15-85 or a 17-55 f/2.8 but I'm not sure if the market will make those lenses viable economically.

I wonder if the RF-S lenses will be about as small as the EF-M lenses. The RF mount is wider, but the focal length/aperture range of the 18-150 is the same as the EF-M version... so there is hope. Assuming that most R7 users will be using RF L lenses like many 7D users using EF L lenses, then I can see the M10 and the new lenses targeting/replacing the EOS M system. Something Rebel/M5/M6 sized. Sell it with a 2 or 3 lens kit a la Rebel. Here's to hoping Canon develops this system more than what Nikon did with their Z crop system.


----------



## jam05 (May 10, 2022)

Maybe CR has information that would lead one to believe that the R10 would calibrate and balance properly on an M2s, M3 or Zhiyun equivalent compact gimbal. We shall see. If it does, I dont believe that Canon would be able ship sufficient quantity for the first year or two in order replace its M series. My bet it would take at least 5 years.


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

The ultimate irony would be if all this stuff turns out to be FF  .


----------



## ag25 (May 10, 2022)

R7 or R10 might make a great backup for my R6/R5


----------



## Daner (May 10, 2022)

If the R7 is built to satisfy 7D users as a crop-sensor body for professional use, the R10 can go with a lower-res sensor and single card to reduce the cost, size, and weight. From my experience with the 7D2, 5D4, R, and R6, a 24MP crop sensor in an IBIS-equipped, EOS R-sized body with a joystick instead of the multi-function bar, a focusing system to match the R6, and the LP-E6 battery size and access to RF, EF, EF-S, and RF-S lenses would be a welcome addition to the market.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

The Canon M is a glorified point and shoot. It is small, compact and easy to travel with. It is a simplified system and it has a niche.
It is a niche that really doesn't require much upgrading, it performs really well at what it does today.
The logic going round that the R10 and other APS-C bodies are meant to replace the M line makes no sense. 
Are they going to make small tiny APS-C R bodies and tiny RF-S lenses to go with it?
How would it be an upgrade path having a tiny M size body to mount on the RF 24x70. It would be awkward.
It does make sense this is an expansion of the R line to build on the model Canon had with the EOS EF line.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> How would it be an upgrade path having a tiny M size body to mount on the RF 24x70. It would be awkward.


I wonder how many EF-M mount adapters Canon has sold, and how many EF lenses Canon has sold to people who own only M-series bodies. I suspect the answer to the latter is 'not many'.

Canon doesn't have to wonder...they know.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 10, 2022)

ag25 said:


> R7 or R10 might make a great backup for my R6/R5


The 7D + 5D2 and the 7D 1&2 + 5D3 were/are great combinations, especially from ergonomic and muscle memory reasons.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The ultimate irony would be if all this stuff turns out to be FF  .


Funny and true... Congratulations... Best excuse so far!


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure there will be. In the meantime, there's a 3.


Obviously referring to CR rating... Sad and dull... Sorry... Worst excuse so far!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> The Canon M is a glorified point and shoot. It is small, compact and easy to travel with. It is a simplified system and it has a niche.
> It is a niche that really doesn't require much upgrading, it performs really well at what it does today.
> The logic going round that the R10 and other APS-C bodies are meant to replace the M line makes no sense.
> Are they going to make small tiny APS-C R bodies and tiny RF-S lenses to go with it?
> ...



It makes even less sense to think Canon would keep alive and maintain 2 APS-C systems. It doesn't make sense to mount a 24-70 lens but something like the R7 is perfect for the 100-500, giving plenty of reach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> The 7D + 5D2 and the 7D 1&2 + 5D3 were/are great combinations, especially from ergonomic and muscle memory reasons.


I had and really liked the 7D + 5DII combination. But I liked the 1D X better. Other than the M-series which I like for a kit size that is smaller than achievable with an RF mount camera, I don't think I'll own another body without an integrated grip like the 1-series and my current R3. Maybe that will change when I can no longer carry them, but I'm many years from that (and if I was there today, I'd be considering Fuji or Oly).


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> The Canon M is a glorified point and shoot. It is small, compact and easy to travel with. It is a simplified system and it has a niche.
> It is a niche that really doesn't require much upgrading, it performs really well at what it does today.
> The logic going round that the R10 and other APS-C bodies are meant to replace the M line makes no sense.
> Are they going to make small tiny APS-C R bodies and tiny RF-S lenses to go with it?
> ...


The R7 clearly has to be a decent sized body if it is to fill the slot that everyone expects. Given that the majority of EF and most EF-s lenses have been discontinued but none of the M lenses other than the original 18-55 have been, it would be logical to assume that a) The M6 II is going away because it doesn't fit the M paradigm and b) the R10 is really a Rebel replacement. The physical size of the R10 will tell the intent. From the rumor, it sounds like the sensors in these new cameras may well be the existing 24 and 32 MP sensors, with the possibility that the 32 has been upgraded a bit for more speed. Sounds like only a couple of weeks to find out. For the R7 to be a viable stand-alone package, the EF-s 15-85 needs to be resurrected in RF format. It was the best of the EF-s lenses and actually capable of 24mm FF Equiv.


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It makes even less sense to think Canon would keep alive and maintain 2 APS-C systems. It doesn't make sense to mount a 24-70 lens but something like the R7 is perfect for the 100-500, giving plenty of reach.


And the ability to sensibly mount the 100-500 means the size of the R7 will in no way be competitive with any M camera. The size of the R10 remains to be seen, by my bet is for a Rebel replacement and the M50 is here to stay (at least for the next year or so).


----------



## amfoto1 (May 10, 2022)

I will not be at all surprised if Canon launches two APS-C format R-series cameras at the same time, as suggested in this rumor. They simply can't address the different parts of the market with a single camera. 

But, I hope the R7 and R10 specs cited in the earlier posts are wrong. I would prefer the resolution to be the reverse: 24MP in the R7 and 32.5MP in the R10. 

Assuming the R7 is intended to be a mirrorless 7D Mark II, it should be no more than 24MP. In fact, that would be a 20% increase in resolution compared to the 20MP 7DII. If these models are intended to be an APS-C "sports/action" mirrorless, 24MP makes more sense. After all, the R3 is 24MP and essentially is the mirrorless replacement for the 20MP 1DX Mark III, both of which were full frame, top-of-the-line, no compromise "pro" cameras with similar sports/action purpose. To meet this purpose R7 needs a high performance AF system, dual card slots (preferably the same... not a mix of types), should be similar in size/shape to R5/R6 and share the BG-R10 with those cameras.... and needs no more than 24MP. Glad to hear it will have IBIS, too. Hopefully it will have fast readout (BSI stacked sensor?) to prevent rolling shutter effect, too. 

If the R10 is intended to replace the recently discontinued M6 Mark II, it needs to be 32.5MP like that camera. It would be a good idea for this camera to gain a built-in electronic viewfinder. At the higher price point, the M6II should have had one. In fact, the lack of a built in EVF might be one thing that's worked against the M6II. Yes, a separately sold accessory EVF is available. But it occupies the camera's hot shoe, so cannot be used at the same time as an accessory flash. It didn't make a lot of sense that the less expensive M50 cameras had a built-in EVF, while the more expensive M6 models didn't! 

I'm mildly surprised to see both mechanical and electronic shutter frame rates quoted for these cameras. I thought it possible that Canon would go with electronic shutter only in these and other future cameras (much as Nikon has done with their top-of-the-line Z9). It may be a logical cost-saving move.

If the R10 replaces the M6II, I think it likely Canon will continue to offer the M50 Mark II for the time being... at least until they have a replacement for it. The M50II and M50 before it have simply been way too successful for Canon to discontinue without being able to offer a comparable R-series. As a vlogger-oriented camera, this might be the model where they forego a built-in viewfinder. An EVF is less needed for video work and this is supposed to be a more affordable camera (current M50II sells for $600, while the M6II has been selling for $850, body only in both cases). If not launched alongside the R7 and R10, I would wager an "R50" is in the works and will come in due course. It just makes sense for Canon to consolidate everything into the R-series and RF-mount, eliminating both the EF/EF-S and EF-M cameras and lenses. 

An R10 (and an "R50", if/when there is one), needs to have IBIS. That's not listed as one of the R10 specs.

RF 18-45mm and RF 18-150mm lenses make a lot of sense too. I doubt they will be labelled "RF-S" though... Canon has stated there will be none of those. What I think they meant though, is that there will be no "crop only" lenses with a modified mount designed to prevent them from being used on full frame cameras, the way there were with EF-S lenses (versus full frame capable EF lenses). There simply is no longer need for that. 

Back in 2004 when Canon intro'd EF-S lenses they were the only company offering _both_ APS-C and full frame cameras. So they opted to design their crop-only lenses that way out of concern that people wouldn't understand the difference. Today's marketplace is much smarter about this, since virtually all manufacturers now make both APS-C and full frame, and none of them have found it necessary to restrict their crop lenses in this manner. For that matter, third party lens makers have had little trouble using the same EF mount on both full frame and crop only lenses they've made to fit Canon DSLRs. 

Also, one of the reasons for the EF-S mount was that some lenses would protrude inside the camera, which would interfere with and potentially damage the mirror mechanism of a full frame camera. Of course, with mirrorless full frame R-series cameras, this is no longer a concern either. 

Regardless whether they are actually labelled "RF-S" or not, you can bet that they will use the same RF mount as the full frame capable RF lenses for the R3, R5, R6, etc. The FF R-series cameras also now have a "crop mode", so can work with adapted EF-S lenses. 

Finally, I'm a little disappointed to not see an ultrawide "RF-S" zoom being announced. There has been a 10-24mm on the Canon lens roadmap for some time now, that I thought might fit that role. Besides a "kit lens" like the 18-45mm (compact) and 18-150mm (more premium), an ultrawide is the only other type of lens necessary right away. Everything else can be accomplished with the full frame RF lenses. Yes, there is a compact, affordable RF 16mm lens... But that's not much wider than 18mm. There are also RF 15-35mm f/2.8L and RF 14-35mm f/4L full frame lenses... But those cost $2400 and $1700 respectively. Nice lenses, but at those prices they may not be very attractive to the broad swath of APS-C camera purchasers. Among the EF-S lenses for Canon's APS-C DSLRs, there are currently a 10-22mm ($650) and a slower but very affordable 10-18mm ($300).


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> I will not be at all surprised if Canon launches two APS-C format R-series cameras at the same time, as suggested in this rumor. They simply can't address the different parts of the market with a single camera.
> 
> But, I hope the R7 and R10 specs cited in the earlier posts are wrong. I would prefer the resolution to be the reverse: 24MP in the R7 and 32.5MP in the R10.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing the intended application of these cameras. My sense is that the R7 will replace the 7D II, the 90D, and the M6 II to cover action and wildlife. For latter, it needs as many pixels as it can get. The R10, OTOH, is likely a Rebel replacement, so will be quite pedestrian and really cheap. For the R7 to be a successful stand-alone package, the EF-s 15-85mm needs to be released in RF form. I think the M50 is here to stay for quite a while longer.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Obviously referring to CR rating... Sad and dull... Sorry... Worst excuse so far!


Man that was an out of context response.


----------



## John Wilde (May 10, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> If the R10 is intended to replace the recently discontinued M6 Mark II, it needs to be 32.5MP like that camera.


24MP would work as a replacement for the M100/M200 or M50.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It makes even less sense to think Canon would keep alive and maintain 2 APS-C systems. It doesn't make sense to mount a 24-70 lens but something like the R7 is perfect for the 100-500, giving plenty of reach



Reach...

If the R7 is similar in size to the other R bodies, and the M is still tiny, there is a very good reason to keep the M.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> 24MP would work as a replacement for the M100/M200 or M50.


But the size of a body (and lenses) needed to support a full frame mount would not.


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Man that was an out of context response.


Only for people finding excuses for everything!
But keep going... I'm already curious how your excuse will be on announcement day!


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The R7 clearly has to be a decent sized body if it is to fill the slot that everyone expects. Given that the majority of EF and most EF-s lenses have been discontinued but none of the M lenses other than the original 18-55 have been, it would be logical to assume that a) The M6 II is going away because it doesn't fit the M paradigm and b) *the R1 is really a Rebel replacement. * The physical size of the R10 will tell the intent. From the rumor, it sounds like the sensors in these new cameras may well be the existing 24 and 32 MP sensors, with the possibility that the 32 has been upgraded a bit for more speed. Sounds like only a couple of weeks to find out. For the R7 to be a viable stand-alone package, the EF-s 15-85 needs to be resurrected in RF format. It was the best of the EF-s lenses and actually capable of 24mm FF Equiv.


 If the R1 is a Rebel replacement I am switching to Nikon today. I have had enough.

We will see what Canon does with the R7, they may just use the number and do what they did with the D60 or D70 upgrade. (not sure which one it was)
Canon cut back the specs when they released it to keep it significantly under the 7D.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Only for people finding excuses for everything!
> But keep going... I'm already curious how your excuse will be on announcement day!


 You need to drop back and read.
We were talking about Bodies. As in the R1, not in CR ratings.


----------



## amfoto1 (May 10, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The R7 clearly has to be a decent sized body if it is to fill the slot that everyone expects. *Given that the majority of EF and most EF-s lenses have been discontinued but none of the M lenses* other than the original 18-55 have been, it would be logical to assume that a) The M6 II is going away because it doesn't fit the M paradigm and b) the R10 is really a Rebel replacement...



Of the nearly 80 Canon EF/EF-S lenses for their DSLRs in 2020, some 26 or 28 have been discontinued within the past year. The "majority" are still in production. There are still 37 EF (full frame) and 12 EF-S (crop) lenses being offered. In addition, over the years there have been numerous earlier versions of Canon EF and EF-S lenses that were either discontinued or superseded, plus many dozens of third party autofocus lenses for the EF lens mount.

There have only ever been 8 Canon EF-M lenses for their M-series cameras. One of those was discontinued many years ago (18-55mm was replaced with 15-45mm and 18-150mm). Further, there have only been 6 third party lenses with autofocus offered for EF-M mount (3 Sigma and 3 Viltrox). The most recent EF-M lens from Canon was a 32mm f/1.4 introduced in 2018. The other lenses were introduced between 2012 and 2016. All EF-M lenses use STM (stepper motor) focus drive... none use Canon's faster USM or Nano USM focus drive.

In fact, even after discontinuing a fairly large number of them, Canon still has a greater selection of lenses for the DSLRs they are phasing out than Fujifilm, Panasonic, or Olympus offer for their systems. Canon still offers a better selection of EF and EF-S lenses that Sony offers for their e-mount cameras. Only Nikon has a larger selection of lenses than Canon, in their F-mount for the DSLRs they're phasing out!


----------



## lote82 (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> You need to drop back and read.
> We were talking about Bodies. As in the R1, not in CR ratings.


Sorry, my fault... Thanks for clarifying


----------



## Skux (May 10, 2022)

Seems like they're just duplicating EF-M designs and remaking the system for RF. It makes sense and finally brings everything under the same mount.

I just hope they transfer some of the nicer primes (22mm, 32mm) to RF-S to satisfy the compact crowd.


----------



## John Wilde (May 10, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> But the size of a body (and lenses) needed to support a full frame mount would not.


I didn't mean use the exact same bodies.


----------



## amfoto1 (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> If the R1 is a Rebel replacement I am switching to Nikon today. I have had enough.
> 
> We will see what Canon does with the R7, they may just use the number and do what they did with the D60 or D70 upgrade. (not sure which one it was)
> Canon cut back the specs when they released it to keep it significantly under the 7D.



Canon tried to call the 90D a replacement for both the 80D and 7D Mark II. 

It was definitely a solid update from the 80D... However, in most respects it was definitely NOT a replacement for the 5 year older 7D Mark II.

Canon 7D Mark II (2014), $1800, 20MP, 65-point AF, 10 frames/sec, magnesium body, dual memory card slots, durability rated for 200K shutter actuations.

Canon 80D (2016), $1100, 24MP, 45-point AF, 7 frames/sec, polycarbonate body, single memory card slot, durability rated for 100K actuations. 

Canon 90D (2019), $1200, 32.5MP, 45-point AF, 10 frames/sec, polycarbonate body, single memory card slot, durability rating 120K actuations. 

The 7DII's rear LCD is fixed and it's not a TouchScreen.... the 90D and 80D screens are articulated and TouchScreens. 

90D got a "joystick" to control AF point selection, much like 7DII has. 80D and earlier didn't have that. However, the battery grip for 7DII has a second joystick, while the grip the 90D shares with 80D and 70D does not. Also, 7DII has a control to directly toggle through the camera's seven different AF patterns. 90D and 80D don't have that, and 90D has five AF patterns, while 80D has four. 7DII has more user adjustable focus settings than either of the others. 

Under standard CIPA testing, the 90D is much more power efficient.... rated to get 1300 shots with a fresh battery. In comparison 80D is rated to get 970 shots and 7DII only 670 shots with the same battery. (All three use LP-E6N... or the newer LP-E6NH.)

90D's 32.5MP is the highest resolution of any APS-C camera other than the M6 Mark II that shares the same images sensor. In fact, it's higher resolution than many full frame cameras! More is better... but such high resolution also makes the camera a bit more susceptible to shake blur. Greater care and/or faster shutter speeds should be used. This susceptibility to camera shake is another reason I'm hoping Canon doesn't fit the R7 with a 32.5MP sensor. Shooting sports can be fast and furious, with very quick camera movements.

7D Mark II (and earlier 7D) follow the design of the 1D-series..... with dual processors and a separate chip dedicated to just the AF system. This is part of the reason the 7DII's AF system remains superior to the 90D's five year newer AF system. The 7DII has one of the shortest shutter lags of any Canon DSLR... comparable to many of the 1D-series cameras. All other Canon DSLRs use a single processor for both image handling and focusing (excpet the 50MP 5DS models, which use dual processors). The only way the 90D's AF system may be superior to 7DII is in Live View mode, where it has face detection capability.

Officially 90D can do 11 frames per second. However, that's only with "locked AF". It makes little to no sense to shoot bursts with locked AF and the camera only slows slightly to 10 fps with AF in continuous focus mode.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 10, 2022)

Something seems off about this rumor.

The 18-45mm and 18-150mm lenses have been mentioned before including in patent applications, but as lenses that cover a FF sensor (maybe the 18-150mm didn't on the wide end, if I remember right). Now they're being called out as crop lenses?

We'll find out the truth soon, but for now the R10 and these lenses seem a bit suspect to me. As a crop lens, 18-45mm doesn't compete well on paper with kit lenses from the other manufacturers, in particular losing out on the wide end. If it actually covers a FF image circle then almost certainly there have been compromises made - I find it hard to believe Canon will have come up with a design that performs well on FF without being unusually heavy and expensive for a kit lens.

If this rumor is real, I'll be a bit disappointed. I'm sure it will sell well if they start shipping this instead of Rebels and Ms and it's priced right. Most camera buyers don't research much before buying and don't buy extra lenses so what's in the box doesn't matter that much from a "will it sell" perspective. But, as a current M user I don't see any compelling reason for me to switch. Personally, I don't think any of the existing RF lenses are a good fit for an APS-C camera compared with the competition's line up (including M). Two kit lenses does not shift the balance. It makes no sense for me to sell all my gear just to go and buy the same stuff again with a different mount.

Now if the R10 is actually full frame and replaces the RP, that (to me) makes more sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> The only way the 90D's AF system may be superior to 7DII is in Live View mode, where it has face detection capability.


With an f/8 lens (e.g. a 100-400L with 1.4x TC), the 7DII is reduced to a single AF point (cross-type) in the center. The 90D gives you 27 AF points spread across the frame (including 9 cross-type).

For those wanting a high MP APS-C camera for 'reach' (and who can't get there by buying a great white) the ability to use an f/8 lens with >1 AF point is likely quite impactful. My 1D X also has just one AF point with an f/8 lens, and that's one reason why I didn't often use the 2x TC on my 600/4 II. I'm using that combo much more on my R3.


----------



## Phenix205 (May 10, 2022)

M shooters, time to switch to Fuji.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 10, 2022)

Interesting rumour at least and it has people interacting.
For me both an R7 and R10 make sense. Canon certainly need to make a cheaper mirrorless cameras.
The prices so far are restricting the potential customer base. Same for the lens. They need some cheaper plastic lens.
It would make more sense to me to make cheap RF lens rather than RF-S lens but those two lens would cover alot of beginners requirements.
Canon could make those two RF-S lens alone for an APS-C sensor and sell quite a few of them.

I wouldn't see it necessarily as the end of EOS M series. Every few years they could bring out a new model with a newish or hand me down sensor , same body and firmware, and same set of lens and it would probably sell away based on the brand name and the fact it is a solid camera for travel photography. 

When the R7 comes out I'll be interesting in what its like for birding and for sport. It's likely to be very suitable for both


----------



## dlee13 (May 10, 2022)

Maybe it’s time to sell my M50 II while the value still holds a bit… 

Although I did promise myself no more APSC cameras and to wait for that new entry level FF R body


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> Of the nearly 80 Canon EF/EF-S lenses for their DSLRs in 2020, some 26 or 28 have been discontinued within the past year. The "majority" are still in production. There are still 37 EF (full frame) and 12 EF-S (crop) lenses being offered. In addition, over the years there have been numerous earlier versions of Canon EF and EF-S lenses that were either discontinued or superseded, plus many dozens of third party autofocus lenses for the EF lens mount.
> 
> There have only ever been 8 Canon EF-M lenses for their M-series cameras. One of those was discontinued many years ago (18-55mm was replaced with 15-45mm and 18-150mm). Further, there have only been 6 third party lenses with autofocus offered for EF-M mount (3 Sigma and 3 Viltrox). The most recent EF-M lens from Canon was a 32mm f/1.4 introduced in 2018. The other lenses were introduced between 2012 and 2016. All EF-M lenses use STM (stepper motor) focus drive... none use Canon's faster USM or Nano USM focus drive.
> 
> In fact, even after discontinuing a fairly large number of them, Canon still has a greater selection of lenses for the DSLRs they are phasing out than Fujifilm, Panasonic, or Olympus offer for their systems. Canon still offers a better selection of EF and EF-S lenses that Sony offers for their e-mount cameras. Only Nikon has a larger selection of lenses than Canon, in their F-mount for the DSLRs they're phasing out!


You aren't looking in the right place. https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ Just because you can still buy a particular lens doesn't mean it is still in production. There are currently only 6 EF-s lenses and 7 EF-M lenses. What is left in the EF-s line is also a pretty weird mix (mostly wide and no telephotos). I count 28 EF lenses (including tilt-shift lenses) and again, the mix is pretty weird with many of the best gone (and those will likely be the next to show up on the RF list).


----------



## Dragon (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> If the R1 is a Rebel replacement I am switching to Nikon today. I have had enough.
> 
> We will see what Canon does with the R7, they may just use the number and do what they did with the D60 or D70 upgrade. (not sure which one it was)
> Canon cut back the specs when they released it to keep it significantly under the 7D.


Sorry, typo. That was supposed to be R10  .


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Reach...
> 
> If the R7 is similar in size to the other R bodies, and the M is still tiny, there is a very good reason to keep the M.



What is so funny?

The M is not a serious sport or wildlife camera with the tiny batteries, no weather sealing, no viewfinder, no RF compatibility. I like the M system for the size but it's not logical for Canon to keep it. 

Look at the Nikon Z50. It's about the same size as the M6/M50 while the Z mount is the same size as the RF. So it's possible to make a small camera.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

Dragon said:


> And the ability to sensibly mount the 100-500 means the size of the R7 will in no way be competitive with any M camera. The size of the R10 remains to be seen, by my bet is for a Rebel replacement and the M50 is here to stay (at least for the next year or so).



Just like the 7D was not competitive with Rebels or something like the 250D in size. Different camera sizes for different needs.

The Nikon Z50 is about the same size as the M50 and has a much larger mount.


----------



## flaviojzk (May 10, 2022)

Kharan said:


> Does this mean the 18-45mm will only cover the APS-C image circle? Oh man, I was so hyped for it, thinking it'd be for 35mm


Me too, I am waiting for a consumer uwa zoom for my rp. Hope it is a full frame lens that could also be used as a kit for the R10


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

While I have been a strong believer that we would eventually see APS-C R bodies, I am not necessarily in the camp that say the M cameras are dead. Will they be phased out eventually? Sure. But I am not sure that even with the impending release of the R10 that it spells the immediate end of the house of M. I don't know how reliable a rumor it is, but there is a rumored M50 III slated for the end of the year. For all those who think it has to be one or the other, please remember there is space for different bodies and mounts to exist that target different types of users. While the M50 might be the end of the road for M for me, there is still room for a compact, self-contained system like the M. I'll be glad if it is still there and maintained, even if I myself am no longer its target market.


----------



## C4RBON (May 10, 2022)

From Canon's perspective, RF-S makes sense for several reasons:
- Customers with RF-S APS-C/low-spec bodies can eventually "upgrade" to the expensive L lenses without needing a super-expensive body. Canon can produce cheaper APS-C bodies and lenses to attract entry-level customers, and then keep them as they step-up to more expensive equipment.
- More than just a physical interface, the RF mount enables some features that Canon could never implement on the EF-M system, like storing optical/correction information on the lens, and the control ring.
- As EF lenses leave the market, EF-M will eventually lose some of it's flexibility (since adapting EF lenses to EF-M was a good selling point for the system).

I don't see how the RF-S system could result in a package as small as the EF-M. Maybe Canon will surprise me; or, maybe Canon has decided that the small/travel MILC market isn't worth pursuing?
I personally hope that the EF-M system can live on as Canon's small travel system; there is finally (circa 2018) a good selection of travel-oriented lenses; that was always the big complaint with EF-M system. The EF-M system is a nice cohesive package; the lenses share a similar aesthetic, size, and price. It has a familiar Canon menu system. And it is compatible (via mount adapter) with the large back-catalog of EF lenses; those lenses won't be obsolete for a long time to come.


----------



## tbgtomcom (May 10, 2022)

All great news


----------



## Czardoom (May 10, 2022)

One spec doesn't make sense in regards to the R10 being a rebel/m50 replacement - the 15-23 fps. That high a fps makes me wonder if the R10 is the 90D mirrorless replacement and the R7 is going to be very high end. On the one hand it seems odd to release two crop cameras that are mid to high end and both with high fps for action possibilities. On the other hand, Canon has stated that they are concentrating on higher end users no doubt because they are the ones who buy the higher end ($$$) lenses.

Just looking at sales figures on Amazon, Rebels and M50 cameras with various kits are always among the best sellers. So, perhaps Canon doesn't feel the need to replace them just yet. I think eventually we will see rebel crop R cameras as in the long run it seem like it must be cheaper to manufacture only one type of camera and drop all the costs associated with mirrors and their assembly. The R10 might be that first Rebel replacement, but maybe it is not. Or, of course, the 15-23 fps may be incorrect, which is quite possible.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 10, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> One spec doesn't make sense in regards to the R10 being a rebel/m50 replacement - the 15-23 fps. That high a fps makes me wonder if the R10 is the 90D mirrorless replacement and the R7 is going to be very high end. On the one hand it seems odd to release two crop cameras that are mid to high end and both with high fps for action possibilities. On the other hand, Canon has stated that they are concentrating on higher end users no doubt because they are the ones who buy the higher end ($$$) lenses.
> 
> Just looking at sales figures on Amazon, Rebels and M50 cameras with various kits are always among the best sellers. So, perhaps Canon doesn't feel the need to replace them just yet. I think eventually we will see rebel crop R cameras as in the long run it seem like it must be cheaper to manufacture only one type of camera and drop all the costs associated with mirrors and their assembly. The R10 might be that first Rebel replacement, but maybe it is not. Or, of course, the 15-23 fps may be incorrect, which is quite possible.



The M6 II can already do 14 fps with AF and 30 fps from a slightly cropped region.


----------



## Jethro (May 10, 2022)

Well, only 13 more sleeps until we find out for sure ...

Just as interesting as the specs of these two bodies (and lenses) will be the accompanying announcement which should provide clues not just on the future of the various M mount bodies, but also the Rebel/XXD/XXXD ranges. These two new bodies can't cover the whole of these ranges, so ... what is the intention? Relatively quick death for the M bodies, and then slow transition for the various DSLR APS-C bodies? There is a wide range of specs and $values within the current APS-C bodies.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> The Canon M is a glorified point and shoot. It is small, compact and easy to travel with. It is a simplified system and it has a niche.
> It is a niche that really doesn't require much upgrading, it performs really well at what it does today.
> The logic going round that the R10 and other APS-C bodies are meant to replace the M line makes no sense.
> Are they going to make small tiny APS-C R bodies and tiny RF-S lenses to go with it?
> ...


The M is a mature product. Even if Canon isn't planning any new bodies or lenses for it, there's no reason to demarket it as long as the revenue it generates exceeds the cost to keep it in production. The same is true for any product. People who insist it should be killed are basically saying "I don't have a use for it so Canon shouldn't make it".


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> RF 18-45mm and RF 18-150mm lenses make a lot of sense too. I doubt they will be labelled "RF-S" though... Canon has stated there will be none of those. What I think they meant though, is that there will be no "crop only" lenses with a modified mount designed to prevent them from being used on full frame cameras, the way there were with EF-S lenses (versus full frame capable EF lenses). There simply is no longer need for that.


When exactly did Canon say that? I've seen similar references to such a statement but the only place I can find it mentioned is on rumor sites and photo forums.

IMO, it is unwise for companies to categorically make statements that "we will not do that." It only handicaps them or puts egg on their face when their plans change. Like when Adobe said they would offer perpetual licenses for Lightroom "indefinitely".


----------



## David - Sydney (May 11, 2022)

I am happy for the APS-C supporters to get the camera that you guys were asking for. 

What is now interesting to me is:
- Will the M200 be replaced by R mount equivalent body?
- Will/if the RP be replaced soon?
- What RFs lenses will be available to replace the M ecosystem (assuming that it will be replaced) and what size/weight they will be. I assume a quality wide angle for the R7 users as well

EF-m lenses (all 60.9mm diameter)
11–22mm f/4 – 5.6 IS 220 g
15–45mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 130 g => RF-S 18-45mm f/3.5-5.6
18–150mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 300 g => RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3
55–200mm f/4.5 – 6.3 IS 260 g
22mm f/2 105 g
28mm f/3.5 IS Macro 130 g
32mm f/1.4 IS 235g


----------



## David - Sydney (May 11, 2022)

Dragon said:


> You aren't looking in the right place. https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ Just because you can still buy a particular lens doesn't mean it is still in production. There are currently only 6 EF-s lenses and 7 EF-M lenses. What is left in the EF-s line is also a pretty weird mix (mostly wide and no telephotos). I count 28 EF lenses (including tilt-shift lenses) and again, the mix is pretty weird with many of the best gone (and those will likely be the next to show up on the RF list).


No need for telephoto EF-s lenses as EF lenses cover those focal lengths perfectly (if wider diameter)


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What is so funny?
> 
> The M is not a serious sport or wildlife camera with the tiny batteries, no weather sealing, no viewfinder, no RF compatibility. I like the M system for the size but it's not logical for Canon to keep it.
> 
> Look at the Nikon Z50. It's about the same size as the M6/M50 while the Z mount is the same size as the RF. So it's possible to make a small camera.


Back in the 7D II days "reach" was tested. Smaller pixels do not translate to the 1.6 crop. The 7D II gave you about 20% of what people term "reach" over the 5D II. Then came along the 5Ds R and "reach" no longer existed. If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5. People still talk "reach", that is often an illusion. The real comparison is resolution, how it relates to other bodies with lower and greater pixel density and how does the "crop" body compare to a full frame body with a similar crop. "Reach" and the superiority of the 7D II line is one that many highly intelligent people bought into in earlier years and once they tested the theory changed their beliefs. However it is a marketing tool that is used to make you believe your 500mm is now a 800mm. 

To the second part it depends on what "serious" means, but with its 55x200 mm attached it has taken some fine wildlife pictures for me. It has its place, in the pocket, the wives purse a backpack when weight really matters. It is, and always has been IMO, a glorified point and shoot.

With a 100x500 attached to any body both the pocket and wives purse will be eliminated. A small camera on this lens would have poor ergonomics IMO.


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The M is a mature product. Even if Canon isn't planning any new bodies or lenses for it, there's no reason to demarket it as long as the revenue it generates exceeds the cost to keep it in production. The same is true for any product. People who insist it should be killed are basically saying "I don't have a use for it so Canon shouldn't make it".


Canon could ride with it for years, keep the lenses they have and just update the little body.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

amfoto1 said:


> Canon tried to call the 90D a replacement for both the 80D and 7D Mark II.


Not trying to start an argument, but when did Canon make that statement with regard to the 7D Mark II? The only place I've seen mention of such a statement is in online forums and on rumor sites.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5.


How do you figure? Without getting into a debate on how much pixel density is necessary, a 32.5 MP APS-C sensor with 1.6 crop factor is equivalent pixel density to 83.2 MP at full frame. That's almost double what the R5 has.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5.



Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.


----------



## Rocky (May 11, 2022)

leadin2 said:


> But canon R10 is either a document scanner or battery grip for R5/R6 when I googled.
> Regardless, I hope they will release an APSC R 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which used to be my all time favorite on both ef-s and ef-m systems.


It will be a pretty large lens. Just look at the EF 17-40 F4 L


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

This creates somewhat of a dilemma for me. But a good dilemma.

I satisfied my high-performance mirrorless APS-C craving last year with a Sony a6400 and never looked back. It works great with every EF lens I've tried on it, and I got a better keeper rate at the few airshows I've been to with it than I used to get with the 7Dii.

Until I bought that, I had been exclusively a Canon ILC user since 1982. I've said all along that I'd love for Canon to give me a compelling reason to go back to them. I haven't replaced any of my EF lenses so it's not as though I have a big investment in Sony glass. Maybe $250 total for the extra cost of the 16-50 kit and a used 55-210 from Craigslist for hiking/biking purposes.

I also bought a Canon EF-RF adapter, so I would have one "just in case" since those were pretty hard to find last year. So I'm set there.

If the R7 turns out to be the ultra super crop-R5 these specs suggest, I might just preorder one on announcement day. My way of thanking Canon. You built it, so I've come. This time next year, I'll have two kids in college, so it's pretty much now or never! Or at least, now or maybe by the time the R7 Mark II comes out.


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> How do you figure? Without getting into a debate on how much pixel density is necessary, a 32.5 MP APS-C sensor with 1.6 crop factor is equivalent pixel density to 83.2 MP at full frame. That's almost double what the R5 has.


It is not like you get the full benefit of the 1.6x.


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.


 We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.


I’ve said many times that the main advantages of an APS-C sensor are lower system cost and weight. 

Smaller size is possible, but not a given. 

A FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. Pairing a great white lens with an APS-C sensor might make sense with small and distant subjects, but in most cases atmospheric effects and diffraction diminish the returns substantially.


----------



## t.linn (May 11, 2022)

I'm pretty pleased at the way Canon has prioritized their lens and body releases. I'm not interested in overpriced, recycled super telephoto lenses or APS-C gear but Canon has introduced just about every FF RF lens I would want to buy at this point. The only thing I'm still waiting for is the 20mm F1.8.


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> The M5 has a viewfinder but the M6 doesn't. So will the R10 come with one or not? There's also the possibility of the R10 being a "rangefinder form factor" with that kind of viewfinder.


Possible. But unlikely in my opinion.


----------



## John Wilde (May 11, 2022)

Has that gray haired youtube guy done a LEAKED! video based on this CR post yet?


----------



## Otara (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.



Even if its a wash in practise, its a good deal. But the other features will be pretty important too, ie AF etc.


----------



## Czardoom (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The M6 II can already do 14 fps with AF and 30 fps from a slightly cropped region.


Yes, that's my point. The M6 II has similar specs as the 90D. It's not a rebel.


----------



## Dragon (May 11, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> No need for telephoto EF-s lenses as EF lenses cover those focal lengths perfectly (if wider diameter)


But the 70-300 II (the closest match) is twice the price, twice the weight, and not as sharp as the EFS 55-250 STM. I wouldn't call that "covering perfectly". The 70-300 L is a great lens but 2 to 3 times the price of a Rebel. I would say EF-s Rebels are the next to go (and pretty quickly).


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2022)

Wow! Step away from this site for a day and all hell breaks loose. Two cameras at the end of the month. Sounds like Canon is confident that their supply chain issues are behind them. Can't wait to see the announcements. I think it will tell us a lot about the future path that Canon intends to follow. The two lenses makes me think the R10 will be more entry level than 90D, but who knows? Canon is nothing if not consistent and the fact that it is an RXX numbering scheme would lead one to believe that it is more along the 90D line, but with a lower resolution sensor. 

Will they follow up with RXXX bodies? 

Can they make these bodies small enough to replace the M series while still using RF lenses? Well, the SLX series was remarkably small for a DSLR, so it's certainly possible. 

In at least one way this all makes sense. Have one mount to rule them all, since RF-S lenses will no doubt seamlessly mount on full frame bodies with an automatic crop to 1:6.


----------



## GoldWing (May 11, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Only thing I can figure is Canon is stuck with a bunch of low rez dated sensors


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...A FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. Pairing a great white lens with an APS-C sensor might make sense with small and distant subjects, but in most cases atmospheric effects and diffraction diminish the returns substantially.


Maybe.

My experience with the 1DxIII, R5 and R3 has shown me that in real world use, old assumptions about sensors are just that: _"old assumptions."_

Old assumption: a high resolution sensor is noisier than a lower resolution sensor at higher ISOs. Real world experience: The high resolution R5 sensor and the sensors in the 1Dx III and R3 show virtually identical levels of noise at higher ISOs. There may be a difference, but when translated to a final product, I have found that the differences are not that significant. It follows that the noise factor in an APS-C sensor, while certainly there, is likely to be much less in real world use than it once was. 

So yes, in theory, a FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. But in practice I think most people will find that the difference in IQ is less than one might expect. I suspect that the greater difference will lie in the fact that a big white has a wider aperture, which allows for greater separation of subject from background, along with the inherent sharpness of a big white prime that costs upwards of $10,000.

A great white lens with an APS-C sensor does not necessarily mean distant subjects. Most songbirds are not so far away to cause problems with atmospheric effects, rather they are simply small. 

Finally, let's be realistic. Not everyone can afford a big white and even those who can afford one may not always finds it practical or desirable to carry one around. Ultimately, it always comes down to the tradeoffs. Canon apparently believes that enough people will find the trade-offs inherent in an R7 are worth the advantages. 

I have no doubt that the R7 will be a great camera and that many photographers will produce great photos that will be indistinguishable from photos shot with other combinations.


----------



## Skux (May 11, 2022)

Just some random thoughts.

- It is entirely possible to make a compact camera with the RF mount, I don't see size being an issue if the R10 is the supposed M6II replacement.

- I don't think there's space in the lineup for a midrange, midsize 90D replacement anymore. The M6II and 90D are essentially the same camera and the R10 will replace both of them. If there's an all-rounder planned it will probably be an entry-level R100 or budget FF RP successor.


----------



## Bishop80 (May 11, 2022)

Skux said:


> Just some random thoughts.
> 
> - It is entirely possible to make a compact camera with the RF mount, I don't see size being an issue if the R10 is the supposed M6II replacement.


Yes, they could still make an M6 Mark II style MILC except with RF mount instead of M mount.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 11, 2022)

Dragon said:


> But the 70-300 II (the closest match) is twice the price, twice the weight, and not as sharp as the EFS 55-250 STM. I wouldn't call that "covering perfectly". The 70-300 L is a great lens but 2 to 3 times the price of a Rebel. I would say EF-s Rebels are the next to go (and pretty quickly).


I didn't say that they were a perfect replacement for size/weight/cost but only for focal length. Clearly they are bigger and more costly than telephoto EF-S lenses.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 11, 2022)

I always like to bring up the Sigma fp/fp l as an example of what is possible for small bodies....
112.6 x 69.9 x 45.3 mm / 4.4 x 2.8 x 1.8 in.
L mount inner diameter of 51.6 mm and a flange depth of 20.0 mm. 
R mount inner diameter of 54 mm and a flange depth of 20.0 mm. 

So slightly more than 2x width of the mount inner diameter and 1.3x the height and 2.25x the depth!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> My experience with the 1DxIII, R5 and R3 has shown me that in real world use, old assumptions about sensors are just that: _"old assumptions."_
> 
> Old assumption: a high resolution sensor is noisier than a lower resolution sensor at higher ISOs. Real world experience: The high resolution R5 sensor and the sensors in the 1Dx III and R3 show virtually identical levels of noise at higher ISOs. There may be a difference, but when translated to a final product, I have found that the differences are not that significant. It follows that the noise factor in an APS-C sensor, while certainly there, is likely to be much less in real world use than it once was.


Pixel size doesn’t really matter. Sensor size does. No assumptions are needed, just knowledge of physics.

For APS-C vs. FF, the noise difference is ~1.3 stops. You likely won’t notice a difference between ISO 200 and 500, for example, but between ISO 6400 and 16000 you likely would.



unfocused said:


> I suspect that the greater difference will lie in the fact that a big white has a wider aperture, which allows for greater separation of subject from background, along with the inherent sharpness of a big white prime that costs upwards of $10,000.


It’s not just inherent sharpness. An 840/5.6 lens on a 20-50 MP FF camera won’t be visibly affected by diffraction. A 500/7.1 lens on a 32 MP APS-C camera will be softer because of diffraction. 



unfocused said:


> Finally, let's be realistic. Not everyone can afford a big white and even those who can afford one may not always finds it practical or desirable to carry one around. Ultimately, it always comes down to the tradeoffs.


Obviously. That’s why I stated that an APS-C system is cheaper and lighter. It is a tradeoff - image quality for money and weight.

I’m certainly not suggesting that APS-C systems can’t deliver great images, by any means. But FF delivers more exposure options and better IQ. Whether the differences are sufficient to justify the spend and effort to carry the gear is a personal decision.


----------



## masterpix (May 11, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> The M5 has a viewfinder but the M6 doesn't. So will the R10 come with one or not? There's also the possibility of the R10 being a "rangefinder form factor" with that kind of viewfinder.


The R10 is (in my view) the equivalent of the D90, therefore it will have EVF (not as good as the one on the R6), while the R-ebel will probably not have an EVF at all. It is like the Sony cameras where the "lower end" does not have EVF which will make it much cheaper than the next level.


----------



## dog8food (May 11, 2022)

Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.


----------



## Otara (May 11, 2022)

dog8food said:


> Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.


 Lack of infinite money might be one reason.


----------



## Jethro (May 11, 2022)

dog8food said:


> Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.


Well, that's the thing about rumours - they're a bit exciting, and good to speculate about (and look forward to in some cases) on rumour sites! And it sounds like the R10 might (it's only a rumour) be a similar size to some of the M series bodies.


----------



## lustyd (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What is so funny?
> 
> The M is not a serious sport or wildlife camera with the tiny batteries, no weather sealing, no viewfinder, no RF compatibility. I like the M system for the size but it's not logical for Canon to keep it.
> 
> Look at the Nikon Z50. It's about the same size as the M6/M50 while the Z mount is the same size as the RF. So it's possible to make a small camera.


Your inability to see the use-case and market doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means your world is small. Sport and wildlife aren't the only kinds of photography, and photography isn't the only use for a camera.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Maybe.
> 
> My experience with the 1DxIII, R5 and R3 has shown me that in real world use, old assumptions about sensors are just that: _"old assumptions."_
> 
> ...


Yes good point about that it’s small birds that are “nearish” that it would be useful for. I’d also agree a big white is often not practical. I am lucky enough to have the 600mm F4 and it’s great except it’s big and heavy and requires a gimbal head and sturdy tripod. It’s a lot of gear to move and manoeuvre with. A sigma 150-600 might not be the same quality but it’s far more flexible and you are more likely to get a shot and can hand hold it. Pixels on the target are important. I think the R7 will be a good asset to bird photographers.


----------



## David render (May 11, 2022)

This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement, it's more a 1300d replacement, so the numbering system is changing, the 90d must therefore be an R8, then the 850d's replacement will most likely be the R9. This R10 is entry level. I'm wondering if the R7 is even worth the wait, especially if they use an old sensor from the 90d. I'm more interested in performance than cost as we are ripped off by canon anyways, the R5 is more in pounds than dollars, even though it's still 1.22 to the pound. How can they justify £4,300 against $3,800?


----------



## Bahrd (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Fear cripples me and I am unable to put it in the cart, if I buy one the next day they will release a 1.
> In reality I will be waiting another year or two.



Have you considered a fund? I believe there are many people waiting for R1 who will pay a few bucks to get it quicker.
And you will eat your cake and have it too!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (May 11, 2022)

I hope the R10 will get IBIS. That is the single most useful advantage of mirrorless cameras. And with a smaller sensor IBIS could even have a larger effect when you use a full frame lense.

It is unlikely that the R7 and R10 will have a new mount. That only made sense with DSLRs, because there a smaller mirror made it possible that the lens can reach further into the body. That advantage vanishes, if there is no mirror at all.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Back in the 7D II days "reach" was tested. Smaller pixels do not translate to the 1.6 crop. The 7D II gave you about 20% of what people term "reach" over the 5D II. Then came along the 5Ds R and "reach" no longer existed.


The 5Ds R cost much more than the 7D II.
Having a higher MP camera does not nullify the concept of reach.
It is buying what I need instead of more than I need and cropping in.


----------



## mpmark (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That was not the best naming system.
> The 90D has to be the end of the line since they ran out of numbers.



Oh numbers stop after 90? Interesting


----------



## bf (May 11, 2022)

Next year: rumour has it a full frame version of R10 will be announced that would likely end M5,6 and R10. We have a surprise: the name has no digits in it!? It will be RPii. Now start commenting!


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The 5Ds R cost much more than the 7D II.
> Having a higher MP camera does not nullify the concept of reach.
> It is buying what I need instead of more than I need and cropping in.


Exactly... 
If I want filet mignon, I buy filet mignon instead of the whole damn cow!


----------



## xelaq (May 11, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction!


I am not sure why you would be happy that a system, beloved by many, will be discontinued. Seems rather despicable.

I am a content user of a M5, but I would have been happy to upgrade to a M5 II. If that will never come, than I see no reason to stay with Canon. Too bad, I really liked the concept of the dedicated APS-C mount, rather than the unified mount for both FF and APS-C.


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

xelaq said:


> I am not sure why you would be happy that a system, beloved by many, will be discontinued. Seems rather despicable.
> 
> I am a content user of a M5, but I would have been happy to upgrade to a M5 II. If that will never come, than I see no reason to stay with Canon. Too bad, I really liked the concept of the dedicated APS-C mount, rather than the unified mount for both FF and APS-C.


Did I say I'm happy that M system will be discontinued? Maybe you should read again...

I'm happy APS-C RF cameras are finally coming (while many M users claimed this will never happen!). Maybe you should wait and see what's coming from Canon. I think they will address M users in some way (even if it's not M mount)!


----------



## Franklyok (May 11, 2022)

what about RF 20-40 pancake ?









Rumors: new Canon RF 20-40mm f/4 STM pancake lens in development - Photo Rumors


There are some rumors coming from China indicating that Canon is working on a new RF 20-40mm f/4 STM full-frame mirrorless pancake lens. Related posts: The TTArtisan 40mm f/2.8 APS-C macro lens is now available also for Nikon Z, Canon R and Canon EOS-M mounts Another new Rockstar lens: 40mm...




photorumors.com


----------



## xelaq (May 11, 2022)

lote82 said:


> I'm so excited about this camera ... but even more about the excuses M-lovers will find!





lote82 said:


> Your anger and frustration tastes good!
> Can I have more please?


I don't know man, seems plenty happy to me. Malevolent even.


----------



## mpwolken (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I hope the lenses will be a bit higher quality than EF-M variants but i doubt it.


The EF-M lenses are not low quality. The lenses are not full frame nor designed for it, but have similar performance on an APS-C sensor as full frame Canon (non-L) glass has on a full frame Canon camera. At least one lens does play on a level with L-glass, the 32mm F1.4. The 11-22 IS is not "exceeded" by any non-L lens made for APS-C by Canon to date; in fact, it crushes the others in the same range on size and weight. I have the R6, 5D Mark II and M6 Mark II. The R6 enables IBIS and full frame video for me in one nice package, but it is not compact. I may add an R7 as well when it is available, but mostly for wildlife; I'm not going to be pocketing it like I do with the M6 Mark II and a 22mm F2.0.


----------



## mpwolken (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Fear cripples me and I am unable to put it in the cart, if I buy one the next day they will release a 1.
> In reality I will be waiting another year or two.


Based on the pellicle mirror patent, I'm expecting the R1 to have a pellicle mirror allowing "mirrored mirrorless" so you don't need to futz with an EVF, but I expect a transparent overlay EVF capability so that you'll be able to see all the pertinent info overlayed on a directly visible scene. I also expect that you will be able to "exposure peak" meaning turn on a full EVF in the viewfinder if you want it.


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The 5Ds R cost much more than the 7D II.
> Having a higher MP camera does not nullify the concept of reach.
> It is buying what I need instead of more than I need and cropping in.


The 5Ds had the same pixel density as the 7D II. Any perceived reach benefit that you believe the 7D II had is purely an illusion created by a "crop".
If you need a cheaper body, or faster frame rate then it might be for you.
Still you have to weight he other cons of the crop body vs a full frame body.


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

xelaq said:


> I don't know man, seems plenty happy to me. Malevolent even.


Indeed ... you really don't know! This quote is from another thread! 

You should learn to read properly ...

I said I'm excited about the excuses M-lovers will find!
So again ... Did I say I'm happy that M system will be discontinued?

"Happy" that it "will be discontinued" were your words not mine!


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

mpwolken said:


> Based on the pellicle mirror patent, I'm expecting the R1 to have a pellicle mirror allowing "mirrored mirrorless" so you don't need to futz with an EVF, but I expect a transparent overlay EVF capability so that you'll be able to see all the pertinent info overlayed on a directly visible scene. I also expect that you will be able to "exposure peak" meaning turn on a full EVF in the viewfinder if you want it.


A long time ago before DSLR's went the way of the dinosaur we had something like this, it was called shooting in live view.

I looked this up to see what you were talking about, maybe it is a possibility but I give the discontinuation of the M line a higher probability.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> A long time ago before DSLR's went the way of the dinosaur we had something like this, it was called shooting in live view.


Go back farther…






PELLIX - Canon Camera Museum


Here, you can find out about Canon's Film Cameras > F > PELLIX.



global.canon







takesome1 said:


> I looked this up to see what you were talking about, maybe it is a possibility but I give the discontinuation of the M line a higher probability.


I don’t think it’s likely, because I don’t think losing half the light to the sensor is something people would want in a one series camera.


----------



## takesome1 (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t think it’s likely, because I don’t think losing half the light to the sensor is something people would want in a one series camera.



My first thought was that it would loose light. The 1 series was known for having a better view finder than other bodies and this will be very true.

So a question, is the EVF on the R3 better than the other R bodies?


----------



## Woody (May 11, 2022)

Someone said there won't be any RF-S lenses... Ooops...


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2022)

David render said:


> This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement, it's more a 1300d replacement, so the numbering system is changing, the 90d must therefore be an R8, then the 850d's replacement will most likely be the R9. This R10 is entry level...


Or, quite possibly, the R10 is analogous but not identical to the old XXD series in that it will be positioned 1 step below the R7. There was never enough separation between the XXD and the 7D, which may have cut into 7D sales. Canon may be simply correcting what they consider a mistake with their previous positioning, putting more space between the RXX series and the RX series.

Of course, it is their numbering system and they can do whatever they want with it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 11, 2022)

mpwolken said:


> The EF-M lenses are not low quality. The lenses are not full frame nor designed for it, but have similar performance on an APS-C sensor as full frame Canon (non-L) glass has on a full frame Canon camera. At least one lens does play on a level with L-glass, the 32mm F1.4. The 11-22 IS is not "exceeded" by any non-L lens made for APS-C by Canon to date; in fact, it crushes the others in the same range on size and weight. I have the R6, 5D Mark II and M6 Mark II. The R6 enables IBIS and full frame video for me in one nice package, but it is not compact. I may add an R7 as well when it is available, but mostly for wildlife; I'm not going to be pocketing it like I do with the M6 Mark II and a 22mm F2.0.



Some M lenses have great image quality but zooms like the 15-45 or 18-150 are nothing special and built like some cheap toys almost.


----------



## Tom W (May 11, 2022)

Very interesting. I wonder if the 2 sensors are already in the lineup, or if they're redesigned. I had heard in a previous rumor that the 32.5 that is likely to be in the R7 is a backside illuminated sensor. No word if that's true, or if it's the same as the 90D sensor. 

It looks like the 18-150 is possibly designed off the M series 18-150, but the 18-45 seems new. Wouldn't be bad to have a 15-45 instead of 18-45.

All interesting, and I'm looking forward to all of this new stuff.


----------



## mpwolken (May 11, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I hope the R10 will get IBIS. That is the single most useful advantage of mirrorless cameras. And with a smaller sensor IBIS could even have a larger effect when you use a full frame lense.
> 
> It is unlikely that the R7 and R10 will have a new mount. That only made sense with DSLRs, because there a smaller mirror made it possible that the lens can reach further into the body. That advantage vanishes, if there is no mirror at all.


I'm guessing the R10 will be mostly an RP with an APS-C sensor to keep it cheap.


----------



## John Wilde (May 11, 2022)

mpwolken said:


> I'm guessing the R10 will be mostly an RP with an APS-C sensor to keep it cheap.


My guess is that it will be significantly smaller than an RP, and not have a viewfinder.


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

Woody said:


> Someone said there won't be any RF-S lenses... Ooops...


You mean the same someone whining now RF-S lenses aren't small enough (despite being not existent)?


----------



## xelaq (May 11, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Indeed ... you really don't know! This quote is from another thread!
> 
> You should learn to read properly ...
> 
> ...


If I misunderstood your words I apologize, but you may understand that your statements might be misinterpreted.

In any case I am just saddened that my favorite system is on its deathbed and I don't really see how an RF-S system can replace it. Maybe it really is time to leave ILC systems for family/travel photography behind and fully embrace the next generation of smartphones. The convinience might be worth the image quality tradeoff.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pixel size doesn’t really matter. Sensor size does. No assumptions are needed, just knowledge of physics.


Not sure if that statement refers to diffraction or noise, but either way, I thought I did understand the physics and it was about pixel size.

Diffraction: Smaller pixel resolution is limited sooner by growing Airy disk as aperture is reduced.

Noise: Smaller pixel = smaller "bucket" to hold charge, so more affected by leakage and less distinction between "levels" in the ADC. Also larger surface area relative to its volume allows more leakage.

Based on my understanding, both of these are pixel-level phenomena. Doesn't matter if the sensor is APS-C, FF, or the size of a football field. A larger sensor just has more of them.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Some M lenses have great image quality but zooms like the 15-45 or 18-150 are nothing special and built like some cheap toys almost.


I respectfully disagree. Canon's kit zooms have improved dramatically over the past 8-10 years. Sure, they're not "L" quality optically or mechanically (or price), but their image quality is more than sufficient for the consumer market and then some.

I've used an M5 and EF-M 18-150 as a travel kit for about four years, and I've found the combination to be more than sharp enough for my needs without pixel-peeping in the corners. I've shot backlit subjects with the afternoon sun in the frame with that combination. The sensor had the DR to pull good detail out of the subject, and the lens controlled the flare to only a single small spot.

Maybe you and I have different standards, but I've been impressed.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 11, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I respectfully disagree. Canon's kit zooms have improved dramatically over the past 8-10 years. Sure, they're not "L" quality optically or mechanically (or price), but their image quality is more than sufficient for the consumer market and then some.
> 
> I've used an M5 and EF-M 18-150 as a travel kit for about four years, and I've found the combination to be more than sharp enough for my needs without pixel-peeping in the corners. I've shot backlit subjects with the afternoon sun in the frame with that combination. The sensor had the DR to pull good detail out of the subject, and the lens controlled the flare to only a single small spot.
> 
> Maybe you and I have different standards, but I've been impressed.



I had the 15-45 and it was an OK lens on the M10. On M6 Mark 2 is soft. But at least that lens is so cheap and small you don't really care. But the 18-150 was overpriced for what is it.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 11, 2022)

David render said:


> This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement, it's more a 1300d replacement, so the numbering system is changing, the 90d must therefore be an R8, then the 850d's replacement will most likely be the R9. This R10 is entry level. I'm wondering if the R7 is even worth the wait, especially if they use an old sensor from the 90d. I'm more interested in performance than cost as we are ripped off by canon anyways, the R5 is more in pounds than dollars, even though it's still 1.22 to the pound. How can they justify £4,300 against $3,800?



15 FPS does not sound entry level to me.


----------



## bf (May 11, 2022)

mpwolken said:


> The EF-M lenses are not low quality. The lenses are not full frame nor designed for it, but have similar performance on an APS-C sensor as full frame Canon (non-L) glass has on a full frame Canon camera. At least one lens does play on a level with L-glass, the 32mm F1.4. The 11-22 IS is not "exceeded" by any non-L lens made for APS-C by Canon to date; in fact, it crushes the others in the same range on size and weight. I have the R6, 5D Mark II and M6 Mark II. The R6 enables IBIS and full frame video for me in one nice package, but it is not compact. I may add an R7 as well when it is available, but mostly for wildlife; I'm not going to be pocketing it like I do with the M6 Mark II and a 22mm F2.0.


I agree; M will never be understood by DSLR users or anyone who has not used it. Range finder crew, hip shooters, and street photographers belong to a different tribe! I read someone wanted to replace it with a cellphone or suggested M6mii's 32MP sensor becoming the new 18MP?! All these comments tell me they have overlooked the small body. 11-22, 22F2, 32F1.4,` and even somewhat 55-200 all are great glass offering unique capabilities. M line never gave any superzoom or extreme focus performance perhaps because the physics don't fit. Fuji X has offered a 100-400 but that's heavier than RF 100-400. I see canon is going after a smilar approach of smaller and cost effective in R line. What surprizes me: Canon never appreciated the considerable revenue they got through the M line. They took the money but never respected the customers as they should have had. I want to keep my M system; I may go to R line or Z line but not for APSC; I may get an optimized full frame system instead.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I had the 15-45 and it was an OK lens on the M10. On M6 Mark 2 is soft. But at least that lens is so cheap and small you don't really care. But the 18-150 was overpriced for what is it.


Indeed. I don't have much experience with the 15-45, but you're right, the MSRPs on Canon's kit lenses are pretty steep. I got my 18-150 in the kit, and it was right around when the M50 was released so they were having some good deals on the M5. But if you can't get it bundled in a kit, buy used.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> So a question, is the EVF on the R3 better than the other R bodies?


I only have an EOS R for comparison, but the EVF on the R3 is much better. It's not quite as good optically as the one on my 1D X, but it's nearly there and for me, the convenience of being able to toggle on and off information displays outweighs the slightly lower optical quality compared to a good OVF. 

Just like EVFs, not all OVFs are equal. The 1-series OVFs are stellar. The R3 EVF is optically better than the EVF of the non 1-series bodies I've used (500D, 7D, 5DII).


----------



## lote82 (May 11, 2022)

xelaq said:


> If I misunderstood your words I apologize, but you may understand that your statements might be misinterpreted.
> 
> In any case I am just saddened that my favorite system is on its deathbed and I don't really see how an RF-S system can replace it. Maybe it really is time to leave ILC systems for family/travel photography behind and fully embrace the next generation of smartphones. The convinience might be worth the image quality tradeoff.


I waited 8(!) years for a successor of the 7D II.
Have you been waiting that long?

If you like the M-system, stick with it. 
If your camera still functions, use it. 
If not, buy a new (or used) one. 
There will be many years till M is outdated (even if it’s not supported anymore).

Meanwhile just wait what Canon will come up in the future ... 
I don’t think there is a reason to be desperate.


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> R10! Interesting..
> 
> I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for!
> 
> Time to save££££££!


You mean spend?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Not sure if that statement refers to diffraction or noise, but either way, I thought I did understand the physics and it was about pixel size.
> 
> Diffraction: Smaller pixel resolution is limited sooner by growing Airy disk as aperture is reduced.
> 
> ...


It referred to noise. For diffraction, pixel size is what matters. 

For _image_ noise, not so much. Yes, a smaller pixel has a slightly higher noise level, but image noise is proportional to total light gathered, and a larger sensor gathers more light. If you compare the image noise from the 20 MP 1D X III to the 45 MP R5, which have similar underlying sensor tech, the image noise is not meaningfully different. Note that when I say image noise, I'm talking about the whole image. Pictures, not pixels. The R5 collects the same amount of light as the 1D X III, just in smaller buckets. An APS-C sensor will collect less light, meaning more noise when viewed at the same output. 

The key is comparing pictures. Obviously, if you compare an R5 image from the full sensor with an R5 image in crop mode and view them both at 1:1, the noise is identical. But if you view them at the same output size, the crop image must be enlarged more, and noise will be more apparent when you do that. 

Side note, a larger sensor doesn't necessarily have more pixels. My R3's FF sensor has 24 MP of them, the M6II's APS-C sensor has 32 MP of them. There are smartphones that use Samsung's 108 MP sensor, which is 1/1.33" with a pixel pitch of 0.8 µm.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 11, 2022)

I see the R7 as being the replacement to the 7D line, and the R10 as being the replacement to the 80D/90D line. If this replaces the M line, OK, but I just don't see it going that way, but instead, Canon replacing the whole 7D/80D/90D DSLR line with the RF mount, and at some point in the not too distant future, the T8i/xxx DSLR line being replaced with an R100 that maybe could serve also as an M line replacement, but they desperately need smaller glass that is geared towards APS-C in order to truly replace the M series. They could also just be simplifying down so that there's just an R1/R3/R5/R6/R7/R10 line and no triple digit R, which means the T series DSLR is going bye bye and M series at some point being replaced with a triple digit R line once the lenses are there.

EF-M is already mirrorless and doesn't really have anything wrong with it other than being a bit long in the tooth, whereas, Canon still has a whole DSLR line to transition to mirrorless so that they can free up those resources for all mirrorless work, so I'd expect their priority to be replacing the line that has mirrors with RF versions first, then at some point decide what to do about EF-M.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 11, 2022)

David render said:


> This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement


Well, The R6 is a 6D II replacement with a significant drop in MP


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Well, The R6 is a 6D II replacement with a significant drop in MP


I don't know if I'd call going from 26 to 20 MP a significant drop, but yes, point taken, it's not an increase, that's for sure. I'd be totally fine with an R10 that had the 80D sensor, or even an updated BSI 80D sensor. It was quite good. It looks like the R7 is getting a BSI version of the 90D sensor, so one can hope that the R10 would get a BSI update, but if it doesn't, the 80D sensor has nothing wrong with it other than being a little long in the tooth. It's a nice solid resolution, and good DR.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> You mean spend?


I need to save first!


----------



## jam05 (May 11, 2022)

The Canon M6 is about 390 grams roughly 14 ounces, no EVF to worry about slamming into a gimbal during calibration, And about 4.5 x 3 x 2 inches. That's quite a tall order for the R10 to fill. We'll wait and see if this is more bla bla bla as it has been for nearly a decade now. Seriously doubt that the R10 will be minus an EVF as the M6. That seems to me as the obvious priority leak to be obtained.


----------



## dog8food (May 11, 2022)

Otara said:


> Lack of infinite money might be one reason.


Like the crop R is gonna be so much cheaper.


----------



## jam05 (May 11, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Your inability to see the use-case and market doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means your world is small. Sport and wildlife aren't the only kinds of photography, and photography isn't the only use for a camera.


Yes, Actually there are more UAS/drones flying, travel photogs, and content creators using small cameras and using compact gimbals than sports photographers.


----------



## Czardoom (May 11, 2022)

xelaq said:


> If I misunderstood your words I apologize, but you may understand that your statements might be misinterpreted.
> 
> In any case I am just saddened that my favorite system is on its deathbed and I don't really see how an RF-S system can replace it. Maybe it really is time to leave ILC systems for family/travel photography behind and fully embrace the next generation of smartphones. The convinience might be worth the image quality tradeoff.


Or you could continue to use your M camera and lenses for another 5 years or more. Or you could buy a new M50 II or an M6 II now and use them for another 7 or 8 years plus. Cameras and lenses still work even if the RUMORED demise of the M system does happen. And 7 or 8 plus years down the road, none of us know what cameras will be available.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 12, 2022)

Woody said:


> Someone said there won't be any RF-S lenses... Ooops...


I certainly said that there didn't need to be any RFs lenses as EF-s lenses fill the gap nicely for a high end R7 or perhaps one decent quality wide angle was needed.
RFs means that Canon is supporting a 5th lens mount which does seem like a lot to manage. 
EF-s lenses will still be needed as Rebel DLSRs are still being sold in quantity.
We are assuming that RFs lenses will not mean a different mechanical mount like EF-s ie the R mount will automatically shift to crop mode like is the case for adapted EF-s lenses
I do note that CRguy hasn't updated the RF lens roadmap for some reason. I assume if it is CR3 then they should be there
https://www.canonrumors.com/this-is-the-canon-rf-lens-roadmap/


----------



## Otara (May 12, 2022)

dog8food said:


> Like the crop R is gonna be so much cheaper.


Thats true, it might only be hundreds of dollars.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 12, 2022)

I really can't help but think these are FF cameras replacing the R and RP with the R7 and R10, the same sensors just with the Digit X for more FPS.


----------



## Cochese (May 12, 2022)

I was really hoping they'd skip "RF-S" lenses and just make regular, low cost FF lenses. maybe give them a different scale to represent the perceived focal distance as well as the EF distance.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 12, 2022)

Those 2 new lenses are corny. Can they just give crop people a small 1.8 zoom like sigma. AT least update the 17-55 2.8. That thing is ancient.


----------



## koenkooi (May 12, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Well, The R6 is a 6D II replacement with a significant drop in MP


Having shot the 1dx3 side by side with the RP: for natural light macro the lower MP 1dx3 captured more detail. The new AA filter and better looking noise pattern make a huge difference.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 12, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Size, weight, and gimbal calibration is a major consideration. The lens by itself doesn't function alone. In order to replace an M50 or the M6 there is a much to wait and see before a conclusion can be made.


RF-S is most likely is the replacement for EF-S platform, while the M-mount is a whole separate system altogether, and I don't think we can infer anything about the latter from these news.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 12, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> True excitement for those who have yet to join the forum.
> I wonder how much true excitement there is for the release of an R10 and RF-S 18-45mm kit lens with the members here. How many forum members will pre-order because they just have to have it.


Why would interest only be associated with making more purchase, are we hopelessly addicted consumers lol! 

What's interesting is that the whole range of Canon crop sensor lenses _may _potentially be upgraded to something better than what was available before, if they do what they generally did with EF glass (lighter/smaller, better IQ). This would be exciting for people starting out in photography on a crop sensor Canon body.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I really can't help but think these are FF cameras replacing the R and RP with the R7 and R10, the same sensors just with the Digit X for more FPS.


They are 100% crop sensor models


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2022)

What’s with the flippy MF/AF switch on the front of these mock ups? No other R camera has this. What’s that about?


----------



## scyrene (May 12, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I certainly said that there didn't need to be any RFs lenses as EF-s lenses fill the gap nicely for a high end R7 or perhaps one decent quality wide angle was needed.
> RFs means that Canon is supporting a 5th lens mount which does seem like a lot to manage.
> EF-s lenses will still be needed as Rebel DLSRs are still being sold in quantity.
> We are assuming that RFs lenses will not mean a different mechanical mount like EF-s ie the R mount will automatically shift to crop mode like is the case for adapted EF-s lenses
> ...


I was gonna say - assuming they're RF lenses with APS-C image circle, it's not strictly speaking an extra mount.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (May 12, 2022)

On demand AF-MF is great addition, as switching that important setting deeply in menu is at least annoying.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I was gonna say - assuming they're RF lenses with APS-C image circle, it's not strictly speaking an extra mount.


Yep. There’s no reason for RF-S to be a different mount like there was with EF-S. But RF-s would be a good product designation for crop image circle lenses. Those of us who have used Canon DSLRs will get the meaning immediately.


----------



## pedroesteban (May 12, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What’s with the flippy MF/AF switch on the front of these mock ups? No other R camera has this. What’s that about?


Looks like they are going to get rid of the MF/AF switch on the new lenses.


----------



## pedroesteban (May 12, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Yep. There’s no reason for RF-S to be a different mount like there was with EF-S. But RF-s would be a good product designation for crop image circle lenses. Those of us who have used Canon DSLRs will get the meaning immediately.







If this mockup is correct and the R7 has an APS-C sensor, looks like the the RF-S mount is smaller than the RF mount.


----------



## unfocused (May 12, 2022)

pedroesteban said:


> View attachment 203510
> View attachment 203509
> 
> 
> If this mockup is correct and the R7 has an APS-C sensor, looks like the the RF-S mount is smaller than the RF mount.


It’s not correct.


----------



## bbasiaga (May 12, 2022)

bf said:


> I agree; M will never be understood by DSLR users or anyone who has not used it. Range finder crew, hip shooters, and street photographers belong to a different tribe! I read someone wanted to replace it with a cellphone or suggested M6mii's 32MP sensor becoming the new 18MP?! All these comments tell me they have overlooked the small body. 11-22, 22F2, 32F1.4,` and even somewhat 55-200 all are great glass offering unique capabilities. M line never gave any superzoom or extreme focus performance perhaps because the physics don't fit. Fuji X has offered a 100-400 but that's heavier than RF 100-400. I see canon is going after a smilar approach of smaller and cost effective in R line. What surprizes me: Canon never appreciated the considerable revenue they got through the M line. They took the money but never respected the customers as they should have had. I want to keep my M system; I may go to R line or Z line but not for APSC; I may get an optimized full frame system instead.


It took seeing one for me to understand. Now I have one, and its great for a small package, highly portable camera. The lens line up gets a lot of guff, but for what it is you don't want a hundred different lenses. A few small pocketable offerings are what this was designed for, and they have everything you need in the lineup. Some never got updates, but honestly I think that people like me who are more hardcore DSLR/MILC users make up a small fraction of the M users. Most are probably upgrading from a phone to a smaller camera, and those types of users aren't likely the type to know or even care if an optically better upgrade for an M camera came out. Canon is managing the lineup for the primary customer base. And its been doing great. 

I'll be sad to see it go if it does. As I don't think they'll be able to full recreate it in the RF line. I don't see the bodies or the lenses getting quite as small. 

Brian


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 12, 2022)

unfocused said:


> It’s not correct.


Seriously! It’s a CR photoshop job. Don’t you think they would say if it was a leaked image?


----------



## ashmadux (May 12, 2022)

*No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*

There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
.
Damn it Canon is going back to its old shenanigans. The r7 will likely be a larger body following the seven series. That means the r10 is going to be the only crop option for carrying around everywhere.

Even worse, trash lenses that will come with it. 

Doesn't sound good to me at all.


----------



## ashmadux (May 12, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> It took seeing one for me to understand. Now I have one, and its great for a small package, highly portable camera. The lens line up gets a lot of guff, but for what it is you don't want a hundred different lenses. A few small pocketable offerings are what this was designed for, and they have everything you need in the lineup. Some never got updates, but honestly I think that people like me who are more hardcore DSLR/MILC users make up a small fraction of the M users. Most are probably upgrading from a phone to a smaller camera, and those types of users aren't likely the type to know or even care if an optically better upgrade for an M camera came out. Canon is managing the lineup for the primary customer base. And its been doing great.
> 
> I'll be sad to see it go if it does. As I don't think they'll be able to full recreate it in the RF line. I don't see the bodies or the lenses getting quite as small.
> 
> Brian



Yep they will not recreate the lenses that the M currently has. So you can buy a nice cheaper ASPC r Mount camera but you're pretty much forced to buy huge full frame lenses for it.

Over the course of the last 8 years I have used my m cameras at least double the rate more like triple. Because they are small and can be carried everywhere. I guess we'll just have to see, but if there's no small lenses for these little crop bodies then it's just a terrible situation.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2022)

pedroesteban said:


> View attachment 203510
> View attachment 203509
> 
> 
> If this mockup is correct and the R7 has an APS-C sensor, looks like the the RF-S mount is smaller than the RF mount.


The RF-S mount will 10000000% be the same size as the RF mount.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*
> 
> There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
> .
> ...


Don’t buy it then…


----------



## RobbieHat (May 12, 2022)

Sad that the only lenses announced are kit lenses. Was hoping for a compelling telezoom to be released with the R7.


----------



## ashmadux (May 12, 2022)

AlP said:


> Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.
> 
> For those (like me) who sometimes need a very small and lightweight ILC, the R10 would have to be extremely small and the rumoured RF-S lenses would have to be smaller than the current non-L RF lenses to replace the M-system. I obviously don't have an R10, but I have an RF 50 1.8 and an EF-M 22 2 in front of me. Lenses the size of the RF 50 are too large for the specific purposes I use them.
> Might well be that I'll have to replace the M6 with a smartphone once it breaks  Or use a camera from another brand, if such cameras still exist then



Work. I'm on my 3rd m62, and the M50 has great autofocus but the noisy files are just not awesome especially for portraits.

The m62 would be the ideal camera for those of us invested in the M mount, but it seems to be a lot of bad copies with questionable auto focus. Cannon told me that they don't even fix them they don't have parts for them, they swap them like apple does ipads. So there's a fairly good chance that you could get one with trash AF like I've been experiencing. My original M1 has done great for me over the years and that's why I never got rid of it. But upgrading to the M50 and the m62 has been a complete pain in the butt.

I'm not worried about lenses for the M because it has everything that I need otherwise I adapt my EF glass. All I needed was these later M's to work well and it just hasn't been a great experience.

And now with the r10 which would be the upgrade for me, to not have in body stabilization just tells me I'm going to invest in some other camera manufacturer. If Canon can't bring me the small crop stabilized body that I need then screw them. The lack of stabilization in M bodies is the worst thing about the series imho.


----------



## ashmadux (May 12, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Don’t buy it then…


I likely won't have a choice. My M cameras right now are not super reliable, so I guess I'm looking towards another brand. The lack of is on small bodies is a killer.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> I likely won't have a choice. My M cameras right now are not super reliable, so I guess I'm looking towards another brand. The lack of is on small bodies is a killer.


Why is it? I’ve never had a Camera with IBIS before and my pictures are fine. It’d be a nice addition but is in no way a crucial feature.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 12, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Sad that the only lenses announced are kit lenses. Was hoping for a compelling telezoom to be released with the R7.


Agree completely. But give it time. Hopefully these are the first lenses in the series, not the last.


----------



## jam05 (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*
> 
> There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
> .
> ...


Actually those that most often use them, have them on small compact gimbals. Some of which fit in small handbags. Many M50 and M6 content creators use Sigma


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> I likely won't have a choice. My M cameras right now are not super reliable, so I guess I'm looking towards another brand. The lack of is on small bodies is a killer.



Canon obviously views IBIS as a high-end feature. Just look at the M. None of the bodies have it. All of the M zooms have OIS instead.

If the R10 is really meant to be a consumer/enthusiast body, the vast majority of Canon's target users won't be wanting to use the fast but unstabilized RF "L" zooms and primes. That's equipment geeks like us who are looking to score a high-end body at a low-end price.

Most, maybe all (I haven't checked), of the slower non-L RF zooms have OIS. So Canon's expected R10 users will have stabilization available. Just like the M series now.

I'm not saying that Canon is right to keep IBIS as a premium feature, but it's their choice. I've posted before about how both Fuji and Sony have high-end APS-C bodies with IBIS and other pro-spec features (weather sealing, dual card slots, magnesium alloy construction) for well under $2000. Maybe one of those would be a better fit for your needs and budget.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*
> 
> There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
> .
> ...


The Nikon DX bodies don’t have IBIS so I wouldn’t count on it from Canon. If there is already a precedent from their main competitor to not do something and that competitor is selling plenty of these (especially repackaged in a retro design) then I don’t see Canon having the will to push this when they can get away with not doing it.

On another track, maybe Canon can get into retro and put the R7/R10 guts into a historically significant case design for the dial lovers and fashion conscious.


----------



## bergstrom (May 12, 2022)

Its interesting how canon say chip shortages slows production, but then plan on releasing a crap crop series of cameras that people are already complaining about. If they cancel the crap crops and focus on making pretty decent budget entry mirrorless cameras, then they can use their bundle of chips making those instead.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 12, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> RF-S is most likely is the replacement for EF-S platform, while the M-mount is a whole separate system altogether, and I don't think we can infer anything about the latter from these news.


Perhaps eventually but Canon still sells a lot of xxD/xxxD/xxxxD cameras which needs EF-s lenses. Canon has discontinued some though


----------



## David - Sydney (May 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I was gonna say - assuming they're RF lenses with APS-C image circle, it's not strictly speaking an extra mount.


True, it is assumed that it won't be a different mechanical mount but still a different lens type that needs to be understood in the market.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 12, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*
> 
> There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
> .
> ...


Well the R5c doesn't have IBIS. It is assumed that this is due to heat management and would save some money.
Also, there are numerous reports of issues of combined IBIS/OIS for wide angle video with the R5. Using only OIS would be a positive in this case as Canon doesn't allow IBIS to be switched off separate to OIS.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 13, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> On another track, maybe Canon can get into retro and put the R7/R10 guts into a historically significant case design for the dial lovers and fashion conscious.


I think they'd make a big splash with M6II guts in an AE-1 style body. It would generate a lot of publicity and be hipster heaven!


----------



## Jethro (May 13, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> I likely won't have a choice. My M cameras right now are not super reliable, so I guess I'm looking towards another brand. The lack of is on small bodies is a killer.


But, your current M bodies don't have IBIS either, so why would that stop you replacing them with a successor without it? If they are intending to keep the form factor (and $s) comparable to the M series, then IBIS is unlikely. Some of the competitors do (of course) have IBIS, but it's always a compromise on image quality / $s / features, no matter what body we're talking about.


----------



## vangelismm (May 13, 2022)

So the R10 is the 80D with RF mount? 
Or can be worse? Like T7i?


----------



## John Wilde (May 13, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!?? *


The same as the Nikon Z50.
The same as the Sony ZV-E10.
​


----------



## SnowMiku (May 13, 2022)

I bet that the RF-S lenses will be a lot more expensive then the M equivalents.


----------



## mariosk1gr (May 13, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> So the R10 is the 80D with RF mount?
> Or can be worse? Like T7i?


More on the 90D side w/o mirror. Just like when DSLR era begun and Canon started with 10D, 20D, 30D... 90D etc.


----------



## dilbert (May 13, 2022)

Not going to give up the M6II with 11-22 anytime soon.


----------



## dilbert (May 13, 2022)

jam05 said:


> Yes, Actually there are more UAS/drones flying, travel photogs, and content creators using small cameras and using compact gimbals than sports photographers.



The Russian army use Canon Rebels in their drones.


----------



## lustyd (May 13, 2022)

I feel like with the various software techniques IBIS is a bit dated anyway. Physically jiggling the sensor about was great when sensors were pushing limits, but right now we could make a pixel dense sensor that's oversized and achieve the same results without the complexity of moving parts.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 13, 2022)

I don't know about the technicalities or physics involved, so do ignore me if I'm wrong. But would it be feasible for RF-S to simply be the M mount with a new badge? And maybe an adaptor to use RF (and legacy ef-s/Ef as you can already do with ef-m) glass?

It could potentially be a way to get M users using R cameras without having to buy a suite of new lenses as well.

I could of course be talking out of my posterior!


----------



## scyrene (May 13, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Sad that the only lenses announced are kit lenses. Was hoping for a compelling telezoom to be released with the R7.


There are already RF telephoto zooms available.


----------



## VOTOXY (May 13, 2022)

I'm curious
Will there be an update to the Canon G7x series ?
My Mark III is starting to feel outdated and some Eye-AF and 4k60 would gladly be appreciated to go take some concert pictures


----------



## vangelismm (May 13, 2022)

mariosk1gr said:


> More on the 90D side w/o mirror. Just like when DSLR era begun and Canon started with 10D, 20D, 30D... 90D etc.


Why 90d? 

80D have 24MP, 90D 32MP.


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (May 13, 2022)

AlP said:


> Time will tell what Canon decides to do about the M system, which is still selling quite well.
> 
> For those (like me) who sometimes need a very small and lightweight ILC, the R10 would have to be extremely small and the rumoured RF-S lenses would have to be smaller than the current non-L RF lenses to replace the M-system. I obviously don't have an R10, but I have an RF 50 1.8 and an EF-M 22 2 in front of me. Lenses the size of the RF 50 are too large for the specific purposes I use them.
> Might well be that I'll have to replace the M6 with a smartphone once it breaks  Or use a camera from another brand, if such cameras still exist then


The R crop camera is going to be bigger, more expensive and heavier than the M system. Watch the EF-S lenses disappear completely, followed by the adaptors.


----------



## JohnOnTheNet (May 13, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Some thoughts...
> 
> It was suggested before Canon might make a crop RF mount camera to see whether customers would prefer it over the EOS M line. If it doesn't catch, Canon can scrap it. The crop lenses would be shared with the R7, and a cheap redesign of existing EF-S / EF-M lenses, saving costs.
> 
> ...


The 24 MP sensor could be recycled from the M50, hopefully updated.


----------



## HMC11 (May 13, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> I don't know about the technicalities or physics involved, so do ignore me if I'm wrong. But would it be feasible for RF-S to simply be the M mount with a new badge? And maybe an adaptor to use RF (and legacy ef-s/Ef as you can already do with ef-m) glass?
> 
> It could potentially be a way to get M users using R cameras without having to buy a suite of new lenses as well.
> 
> I could of course be talking out of my posterior!


You have raised an interesting proposition . The flange distances of the RF and EF-M mounts are 20mm and 18mm respectively. I am guessing simplistically that this broadly means having to house the EF-M optics assembly within a larger diameter casing and position the assembly 2mm closer to the mount (backend of the lens). Not sure if that would make the optics stick out a little at the backend, but 2mm seems doable. However, even if it is possible, it doesn't seem to make sense for Canon to do that rather than design new lenses to take advantage of the RF mount (larger diameter), especially in anticipation of higher resolution future APSC sensors, i.e. the RF-S lenses would probably be designed to resolve higher pixel density sensors. For example, the current lineup of RF 'L' lenses can probably work well for 100mp FF sensors (or about 38mp for APSC sensors).


----------



## bbasiaga (May 13, 2022)

HMC11 said:


> You have raised an interesting proposition . The flange distances of the RF and EF-M mounts are 20mm and 18mm respectively. I am guessing simplistically that this broadly means having to house the EF-M optics assembly within a larger diameter casing and position the assembly 2mm closer to the mount (backend of the lens). Not sure if that would make the optics stick out a little at the backend, but 2mm seems doable. However, even if it is possible, it doesn't seem to make sense for Canon to that rather than design new lenses to take advantage of the RF mount (larger diameter), especially in anticipation of higher resolution future APSC sensors, i.e. the RF-S lenses would probably be designed to resolve higher pixel density sensors. For example, the current lineup of RF 'L' lenses can probably work well for 100mp FF sensors (or about 38mp for APSC sensors).


The OD of the M lenses is greater than the ID of the RF mount (this is just me looking at the M lenses I have and the R6 body I have). So there is no practical way to slip them inside, plus have room for an adapter. Sadly, this means that any M lens on an RF body would have to have an optical adapter - a piece of glass in the adapter to extend the back focus distance to work with the RF for factor. This would not necessarily be the end of the world, but I'm guessing that adapter would be more expensive than some M lenses are. It could create some options too, such as a speed booster as well. But again, that could be several hundred dollar adapter and I'm not sure there would be enough demand. 

This whole though process was gone through when the RF mount was announced years ago. Which is where the speculation that the M mount was on it way out started. Didn't seem to make sense to have two mirrorless platforms, and by making RF 20mm vs 18mm flange distance they effectively (or cost effectively) eliminated the possibility of compatibility between the two. 

Just have to wait and see what happens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> The OD of the M lenses is greater than the ID of the RF mount (this is just me looking at the M lenses I have and the R6 body I have). So there is no practical way to slip them inside, plus have room for an adapter. Sadly, this means that any M lens on an RF body would have to have an optical adapter - a piece of glass in the adapter to extend the back focus distance to work with the RF for factor. This would not necessarily be the end of the world, but I'm guessing that adapter would be more expensive than some M lenses are. It could create some options too, such as a speed booster as well. But again, that could be several hundred dollar adapter and I'm not sure there would be enough demand.
> 
> This whole though process was gone through when the RF mount was announced years ago. Which is where the speculation that the M mount was on it way out started. Didn't seem to make sense to have two mirrorless platforms, and by making RF 20mm vs 18mm flange distance they effectively (or cost effectively) eliminated the possibility of compatibility between the two.
> 
> Just have to wait and see what happens.


I think what @HMC11 means is not adapting production EF-M lenses for the R mount, but rather Canon manufacturing new lenses with the EF-M optical elements in a new housing sized for the RF mount. Optically, I agree that is possible. The 2mm difference nearly fits within the mount thickness, and would not protrude far enough into the body to cause any issues. Basically, it would result in a new set of lenses without Canon making a significant investment in design (reminiscent of the new RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8, where they essentially inserted a 2x TC behind the existing 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses, which themselves are just reused EF designs with an RF adapter bolted on).


----------



## reefroamer (May 13, 2022)

RobbieHat said:


> Sad that the only lenses announced are kit lenses. Was hoping for a compelling telezoom to be released with the R7.


I think the $650 RF 100-400 would be the ideal, affordable and small tele zoo for crop sensor bodies. And the RF 24-105 is quite compact, light and affordable. No, they’re not M-small, but M-small comes with quite few limitations. Other than ultrawide, Canon already covers 16-400mm with good, affordable small lenses, thar are well-suited for the rumored R10, IMHO.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think what @HMC11 means is not adapting production EF-M lenses for the R mount, but rather Canon manufacturing new lenses with the EF-M optical elements in a new housing sized for the RF mount. Optically, I agree that is possible. The 2mm difference nearly fits within the mount thickness, and would not protrude far enough into the body to cause any issues. Basically, it would result in a new set of lenses without Canon making a significant investment in design (reminiscent of the new RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8, where they essentially inserted a 2x TC behind the existing 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses, which themselves are just reused EF designs with an RF adapter bolted on).


This isn't quite what I was getting at in my original proposition - I doubt RF users would be that concerned with EF-M glass and I realise going the other way round, to use EF-M on RF isn't at all practical or cost-effective.

My thought was _what if_ RF-S was simply EF-M with a new name, so you could use existing EF-M lenses and also RF lenses via an adaptor - exactly the same way as EOSM can use EF and EF-S lenses. Of course, this does mean you wouldn't be able to take your RF-S glass with you if you wanted to "upgrade" to FF. Similar (compatibility wise, not physically) to EF-S and EF in that regard.


----------



## takesome1 (May 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think what @HMC11 means is not adapting production EF-M lenses for the R mount, but rather Canon manufacturing new lenses with the EF-M optical elements in a new housing sized for the RF mount. Optically, I agree that is possible. The 2mm difference nearly fits within the mount thickness, and would not protrude far enough into the body to cause any issues. Basically, it would result in a new set of lenses without Canon making a significant investment in design (reminiscent of the new RF 800/5.6 and 1200/8, where they essentially inserted a 2x TC behind the existing 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses, which themselves are just reused EF designs with an RF adapter bolted on).


I do not remember a Canon announcement that said the RF800 and RF1200 were re-purposed EF lenses with 2x TC. They left that for us to figure out.
They may do that with the M lenses, but we will have to figure out what they did for ourselves. They will just release a group of small compact RF-S lenses.
I am not sure what this type of Engineering is called: "streamlined", "repurposed engineering", "value engineering" or "lipstick on a pig engineering". Most likely it would be "accountant engineering" or "bottom line engineering".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> This isn't quite what I was getting at in my original proposition - I doubt RF users would be that concerned with EF-M glass and I realise going the other way round, to use EF-M on RF isn't at all practical or cost-effective.
> 
> My thought was _what if_ RF-S was simply EF-M with a new name, so you could use existing EF-M lenses and also RF lenses via an adaptor - exactly the same way as EOSM can use EF and EF-S lenses. Of course, this does mean you wouldn't be able to take your RF-S glass with you if you wanted to "upgrade" to FF. Similar (compatibility wise, not physically) to EF-S and EF in that regard.


What you're suggesting is not really feasible.

Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.

EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 13, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> I think the $650 RF 100-400 would be the ideal, affordable and small tele zoo for crop sensor bodies. And the RF 24-105 is quite compact, light and affordable. No, they’re not M-small, but M-small comes with quite few limitations. Other than ultrawide, Canon already covers 16-400mm with good, affordable small lenses, thar are well-suited for the rumored R10, IMHO.


Exactly, many are throwing around the incorrect premise that Canon has no small lenses which would make for balanced R Crop bodies. Rubbish. RF 16, RF 50, 35 STM, 85 STM, 24-105 STM, even the RF 70-200L f/4 would work on a body just a smidge larger than an M5. I could also see some pancakes in the future for crop RF. All these and far greater optics to go along with it. Sounds like pure win.


----------



## xelaq (May 13, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> RF 50, 35 STM, 85 STM, 24-105 STM, even the RF 70-200L f/4 would work on a body just a smidge larger than an M5.


These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.




This is why a a unified mount is shit. If you look at at EF-mount, Z-mount or F-mount the APS-C lenses were always bigger than needed, half assed and missing important lenses, b/c you can always gEt ThE fUlLfRaMe LeNs and ApS-c Is EnTrY tO FuLlFrAmE.


----------



## HMC11 (May 13, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> This isn't quite what I was getting at in my original proposition - I doubt RF users would be that concerned with EF-M glass and I realise going the other way round, to use EF-M on RF isn't at all practical or cost-effective.
> 
> My thought was _what if_ RF-S was simply EF-M with a new name, so you could use existing EF-M lenses and also RF lenses via an adaptor - exactly the same way as EOSM can use EF and EF-S lenses. Of course, this does mean you wouldn't be able to take your RF-S glass with you if you wanted to "upgrade" to FF. Similar (compatibility wise, not physically) to EF-S and EF in that regard.


To adapt EF-M lenses for RF mount would require an adapter with optical elements as the Flange distance of the EF-M is actually 2mm shorter. This could add not inconsiderable (cf EF-M lenses) weight and length to the whole setup, negating the light weight and small size advantages of the EM-M system. On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens


Sure, sure. No one uses the 85mm focal length on FF for portraits.


----------



## xelaq (May 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, sure. No one uses the 85mm focal length on FF for portraits.


50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85

There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> 50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85
> 
> There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.


Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm. You're suggestion that being 5mm shorter than the classic 85mm (a 9% difference) means it's not a portrait lens is simply asinine.

You'd have been better off arguing based on perspective, since that is solely based on distance to subject and with a 50mm lens on APS-C you'd be further from the subject than with 80/85mm on FF. But even that doesn't hold water, because pretty much the whole 70-200mm FF range is considered a 'flattering' perspective, and that encompasses the subject distance of an 50mm lens on APS-C. 70-200/2.8 zooms are very frequently used by portrait/wedding photographers for a reason. They don't start at 85mm, do they? In fact, both Canon and Nikon offered 80-200/2.8 lenses, and updated them to start at 70mm.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.
> 
> View attachment 203522
> 
> ...


I used all sorts of L glass without complaint on my M5, I guess the size of your mitts makes or breaks your options. YMMV. plus I don't limit my creativity by 'classic' focal lengths prescribed by history and media.

oh and do you think a telephoto lens such as 400 5.6L or 100-400L let alone larger white teles fit with the balance you desire on 7D/5D Ssize body? No, but we use them with proper technique and for many years, without relying on stabilization.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 13, 2022)

JohnOnTheNet said:


> The 24 MP sensor could be recycled from the M50, hopefully updated.


I'd rather have the sensor from the 80D. It's quite good.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 13, 2022)

I agree that a slight variance from the "traditional" focal lengths is no big deal. I didn't care that my 50mm was actually 80mm equivalent instead of an 85mm, or that my 24mm was a 38.4mm equivalent instead of a 35mm or 40mm. Close enough is close enough.

But, every time somebody trots out the argument that RF lenses would work great on APS-C, I have to think that they haven't been paying attention to the other mirrorless lineups - most of these lenses only are good options for APS-C in a vacuum where other systems don't exist. There are more attractive APS-C options in terms of cost, optical performance, and/or bulk/weight for pretty much every RF lens.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens


Yes it is. In fact the 40mm STM pancake is an awesome lens for portraits on APS-C. I've shot a massive pile of couples portraits with a little Canon Rebel SL1 and the 40stm, and single person headshots with the same camera and the nifty 50. Back then, if you wanted to get into studio portrait photography, those two lenses and an entry level to mid level APS-C body were a very inexpensive and performant way to get into it. Add the EF-s 24mm pancake if you wanted to do more family sized group stuff and the ef-s 10-18 stm for larger group shots and for less than $2K you had a complete studio setup. I spent more money on lights and props than I did camera gear.

These days, I shoot a lot of studio stuff on an RF FF with the RF 70-200 at 70-100mm and with the RF 50STM or 35STM if I need to go a bit wider.

The point is, if you have APS-C camera and you're shooting a a single person portrait from about 6 feet away from the subject, 50mm is about right.


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What you're suggesting is not really feasible.
> 
> Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.
> 
> EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.





HMC11 said:


> To adapt EF-M lenses for RF mount would require an adapter with optical elements as the Flange distance of the EF-M is actually 2mm shorter. This could add not inconsiderable (cf EF-M lenses) weight and length to the whole setup, negating the light weight and small size advantages of the EM-M system. On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.



FWIW, I am _NOT _suggesting EF-M lenses to be adapted for use on the current RF mount. I realise that's not really possible, and it's pretty fruitless endeavour. 

What I _WAS _suggesting is that RF-S and EF-M mounts could potentially be the same thing. So you could natively use EF-M lenses on an RF-S body, and use RF lenses on RF-S bodies with an adapter. However, I note neroanatomist's comment regarding the 2mm adaptor challenges and realise now that it's not really possible. 

It was just a rumination. We'll wait and see what happens.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 13, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I think they'd make a big splash with M6II guts in an AE-1 style body. It would generate a lot of publicity and be hipster heaven!


As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> 50 * 1.5/1.6 =/= 85
> 
> There is a reason why most camera manufacturers are producing 85mm lenses and not 70-75mm. Many ppl also complain that the standard 24-70 f2.8 is too short for portraits. So no, the 50mm on APS-C is not a portrait lens.


And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 13, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> FWIW, I am _NOT _suggesting EF-M lenses to be adapted for use on the current RF mount. I realise that's not really possible, and it's pretty fruitless endeavour.
> 
> What I _WAS _suggesting is that RF-S and EF-M mounts could potentially be the same thing. So you could natively use EF-M lenses on an RF-S body, and use RF lenses on RF-S bodies with an adapter. However, I note neroanatomist's comment regarding the 2mm adaptor challenges and realise now that it's not really possible.
> 
> It was just a rumination. We'll wait and see what happens.


So you suggest making an M7 and calling it an R7?


----------



## gregedwards69 (May 13, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> So you suggest making an M7 and calling it an R7?


More like an evolution of M blended developments distilled from R. Best of both worlds.


----------



## Czardoom (May 13, 2022)

xelaq said:


> These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc.


I suggest you take up photography. It's a nice hobby. Then you might learn a little bit about lenses.


----------



## vangelismm (May 13, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> I'd rather have the sensor from the 80D. It's quite good.


Are not the same sensor?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 13, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> As somebody who owned an AE-1 and A-1 25 years ago, that comment makes no sense at all. The AE-1 used an FD mount, was manual focusing with an optical viewfinder and had no P or S modes.


It also had a mirror and used film so you’re right. Bad idea.


----------



## vangelismm (May 13, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Yes it is. In fact the 40mm STM pancake is an awesome lens for portraits on APS-C.


True, I enjoyed a lot the pancake on a rebel


----------



## Bob Howland (May 13, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> More like an evolution of M blended developments distilled from R. Best of both worlds.


I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 13, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> I've often suggested that Canon should make both an M7 and an R7, very similar cameras with different lens mounts. Ideally the M7 would be smaller, perhaps the size of Olympus 4/3 bodies and Canon could introduce a tiny F/4 pro-grade trinity. If Canon actually does that, I'll be absolutely astonished.


I'd be astonished too, but interested. I don't care about constant f/4 or not, but a set of higher quality zooms for M that can keep up with that 32.5mp sensor would be excellent.

Say an ultra wide that starts as wide as possible while still taking filters (9mm? Maybe 8mm?). So something like a 9-16mm, 16-60mm, and 60-260mm set. Drop the whole "M lenses must all be the same diameter" thing, and target lenses that are maybe 50-100% larger and more expensive than the current M zoom trinity, with corresponding IQ improvements.

0% chance of it ever happening, though.


----------



## AJ (May 14, 2022)

So R does stand for Rebel! I knew it! It had to be!
Arrrrr! (like a pirate)


----------



## xelaq (May 14, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Please, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm. You're suggestion that being 5mm shorter than the classic 85mm (a 9% difference) means it's not a portrait lens is simply asinine.



I would prefer a 90mm lens, but that is pure personal preference. One reason why I like the Olympus 45mm so much. Great lens at an affordable price.



neuroanatomist said:


> You'd have been better off arguing based on perspective, since that is solely based on distance to subject and with a 50mm lens on APS-C you'd be further from the subject than with 80/85mm on FF. But even that doesn't hold water, because pretty much the whole 70-200mm FF range is considered a 'flattering' perspective, and that encompasses the subject distance of an 50mm lens on APS-C. 70-200/2.8 zooms are very frequently used by portrait/wedding photographers for a reason. They don't start at 85mm, do they? In fact, both Canon and Nikon offered 80-200/2.8 lenses, and updated them to start at 70mm.



See above, my disliking of 50mm as portrait prime is my personal opinion. YMMV



Czardoom said:


> I suggest you take up photography. It's a nice hobby. Then you might learn a little bit about lenses.


I mean I/we are splitting hairs here with the voew angles, but I still stand by my point. In a unified mount the APS-C crowd gets the hand-me-downs from FF since they are close enough. In pure APS-C mounts both Sigma and Fuji decided to go to 56mm for their portrait primes, not 50mm. The same goes for the standard prime from Canon. It's not a 35mm but 32mm. They did this b/c they never had to take both FF and APS-C into account at the same time.

If we are looking back at unified mounts my prediction for the APS-C lineup is the following:

- three versions of some 15-45 kit zoom variant
- three versions of a 55-250 kitzoom
- one 18-150 travel lens
- one ultra wide to save the system
- the only prime is a 35mm macro

No bright standard 2.8 zoom (24-70 equiv), no dedicated primes. Instead of building on the extensive M userbase and fill in the gaps in the lens line up we get the same shoddy stuff we already have with a new mount. I dont see the point.


Edit: just checked Z Mount: two dim zooms, one travel zoom and a bunch of expensive FF primes which are wasted and huge on the Z50. The only primes which make sense from a size and price point are the 28 and 40 which translate to 42mm and 60mm primes. Not exactly the most beloved focal lenghts if you ask me.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> And a lot of people use 24-70 lenses for portraits. Just step backwards and don't fill the frame with the portrait. Effectively that creates about a 1.2x crop of the FF sensor, resulting in an 84mm lens. Of course you lose pixels in the process, but if your using, for example, a 5Ds, you probably have pixels to spare.


I've found that what many less seasoned portrait photographers don't generally realize (in the age of nobody really printing and instead using images online) is that it's generally a better practice to shoot a little wider than you think you'll need to account for your image being cropped a bunch of different ways depending on where it's being used. Either step back a little further, or use a slightly wider FOV to give the image some breathing room so it can have a lot of crop flexibility for online usage.

If you're shooting for print where it's always the same aspect ratio and approximate print sizes, then by all means, shoot for that and use the lenses that are most appropriate for that, but if you're shooting for online usage, a little wider at the same shooting distance isn't a bad thing. There's nothing worse than seeing a profile photo online somewhere that has a wonky crop because the photographer that took the photo didn't account for the fact that it was potentially going to be cropped a bunch of different ways, and so see face circles where the face isn't centered in the middle of the circle, or the whole head doesn't quite fit in the circle, etc.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Are not the same sensor?


They're both about 24MP, but other than that, no, not really. The 80D sensor is ever so slightly larger at 22.5mm across the long edge vs 22.3 for Canon's other APS-C sensors, and has a different color response (which you can see via the WB multipliers). Canon has more than one 24mp APS-C sensor design. They could really save themselves some money by getting it down to just one or two sensors instead of seeming to have a different sensor for each line.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> True, I enjoyed a lot the pancake on a rebel


Yep. Canon has a handful of unsung heroes in their EF lineup that I'd love to see in their RF lineup. Small, inexpensive (relatively speaking), killer optical performance for the price, and perfect for double duty if a FF lens. Even more awesome is the 40 STM on an old rebel film body like the 3000 or the 620/650. Makes for a really nice walk around film kit.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> They're both about 24MP, but other than that, no, not really. The 80D sensor is ever so slightly larger at 22.5mm across the long edge vs 22.3 for Canon's other APS-C sensors, and has a different color response (which you can see via the WB multipliers). Canon has more than one 24mp APS-C sensor design. They could really save themselves some money by getting it down to just one or two sensors instead of seeming to have a different sensor for each line.


Funny how Canon lists the same 3.72 µm pixel pitch and 6000x4000 resolution for all their 24mp sensors, including the 80D. That doesn't line up with the 80D having a slightly larger sensor unless the extra size is from extra pixels outside the imaging area.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> Funny how Canon lists the same 3.72 µm pixel pitch and 6000x4000 resolution for all their 24mp sensors, including the 80D. That doesn't line up with the 80D having a slightly larger sensor unless the extra size is from extra pixels outside the imaging area.


Yeah, I don't know about that. All I know is the color balance multipliers are different and the technical specs that canon lists for the 80D lists a slightly larger sensor than what they usually do for APS-C. Of course, they couch it with an "approximately", so who knows what it actually is, all I know is that if you compare different canon APS-C sensors from different cameras (that have the same resolution) on DXO-mark, they don't all have the same white balance multipliers, which tells me that they aren't exactly the same sensor. You could also use dcraw to extract the full sensor array from the files and compare the dimensions if you wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if they were different dimensions. You'll need to use Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 files to DNG, then use dcraw to extract the raw sensor data from the DNG, and just use dcraw directly on the cr2 files.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Yeah, I don't know about that. All I know is the color balance multipliers are different and the technical specs that canon lists for the 80D lists a slightly larger sensor than what they usually do for APS-C. Of course, they couch it with an "approximately", so who knows what it actually is, all I know is that if you compare different canon APS-C sensors from different cameras (that have the same resolution) on DXO-mark, they don't all have the same white balance multipliers, which tells me that they aren't exactly the same sensor. You could also use dcraw to extract the full sensor array from the files and compare the dimensions if you wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if they were different dimensions. You'll need to use Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 files to DNG, then use dcraw to extract the raw sensor data from the DNG, and just use dcraw directly on the cr2 files.


For the 80D, Canon USA and Canada list 22.5mm x 15.0mm, Canon Europe lists 22.3mm x 14.9mm, which lines up with their other APS-C sensors.

If there were different dye formulations in the Bayer filters that would explain the different white balance coefficients.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2022)

From the 80D brochure:
The EOS 80D camera features a *newly developed* 24.2 Megapixel (APS-C) CMOS sensor that not only captures high-resolution images, but also features refined individual pixels that enable high ISO speeds.

But a small tweak to the AA filter or CFA would constitute ‘new development’.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> From the 80D brochure:
> The EOS 80D camera features a *newly developed* 24.2 Megapixel (APS-C) CMOS sensor that not only captures high-resolution images, but also features refined individual pixels that enable high ISO speeds.
> 
> But a small tweak to the AA filter or CFA would constitute ‘new development’.


The 80D predates the M50 and, as far as I know, all the other 24mp APS-C Canon cameras. So yes, its sensor was newly developed at the time.


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> It makes even less sense to think Canon would keep alive and maintain 2 APS-C systems. It doesn't make sense to mount a 24-70 lens but something like the R7 is perfect for the 100-500, giving plenty of reach.


For the entire lifespan of the M mount Canon had the EF aps-c system so carrying on with M and R aps-c is surely much the same .
It's the EF system that is ******* !  
The M mount may well continue if Canon chooses to keep it going . 
Personally it's not "my cup of tea" but plenty of others like it.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 14, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> True, I enjoyed a lot the pancake on a rebel


One of my favorite lenses on the 5D3


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> From the 80D brochure:
> The EOS 80D camera features a *newly developed* 24.2 Megapixel (APS-C) CMOS sensor that not only captures high-resolution images, but also features refined individual pixels that enable high ISO speeds.
> 
> But a small tweak to the AA filter or CFA would constitute ‘new development’.


If memory serves, the 80D was the first APS-C sensor where the ADC was on chip, giving it much better DR over the 70D and 7DII. 

All that being said, if you look at the color response to it compared to other 24MP APS-C sensors from Canon, the 80D WB multipliers have RGB 1.75, 1, 1.75, the M6 has 1.45, 1, 1.35, the M100 has 1.49, 1, 1.37, the 2000D has 2.08, 1, 1.75, etc. Despite that they're all APS-C and roughly 24MP, the different measured white balance multipliers seems to indicate that they're not all exactly the same sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> If memory serves, the 80D was the first APS-C sensor where the ADC was on chip, giving it much better DR over the 70D and 7DII.
> 
> All that being said, if you look at the color response to it compared to other 24MP APS-C sensors from Canon, the 80D WB multipliers have RGB 1.75, 1, 1.75, the M6 has 1.45, 1, 1.35, the M100 has 1.49, 1, 1.37, the 2000D has 2.08, 1, 1.75, etc. Despite that they're all APS-C and roughly 24MP, the different measured white balance multipliers seems to indicate that they're not all exactly the same sensor.


There were several ‘newly-developed’ 18 MP APS-C sensors before the 24 MP sensors came along.


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

David render said:


> This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement, it's more a 1300d replacement, so the numbering system is changing, the 90d must therefore be an R8, then the 850d's replacement will most likely be the R9. This R10 is entry level. I'm wondering if the R7 is even worth the wait, especially if they use an old sensor from the 90d. I'm more interested in performance than cost as we are ripped off by canon anyways, the R5 is more in pounds than dollars, even though it's still 1.22 to the pound. How can they justify £4,300 against $3,800?


20% VAT added makes it $4,560 which equates to about £3,720 so yes Canon UK is gouging you.
I assume you're talking about the price of the R5

Weirdly in NZ if you take our GST sales tax off (which you can avoid by taking a trip overseas and buying it here Duty Free at a local shop which sends it to the airport for you to collect) the the price is only NZD 5,734.78 which converts to USD 3,604 which is a bit cheaper than the USA price and Canon NZ has a full 5 year warranty too


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *No in body stabilization for the R10!!!??*
> 
> There shouldn't be any mirrorless cameras without stabilization. Especially on these small cameras especially prone to shake.
> .
> ...


Why are you saying "Trash" lenses ?
All lenses whether cheap or eye-wateringly expensive from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc have been of at least decent optical quality in the last 10 years at least.
The EF-s and M lenses are all excellent optically if a bit plasticy in construction.

IBIS isn't a crucial feature and for most uses isn't really needed


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

lustyd said:


> I feel like with the various software techniques IBIS is a bit dated anyway. Physically jiggling the sensor about was great when sensors were pushing limits, but right now we could make a pixel dense sensor that's oversized and achieve the same results without the complexity of moving parts.


Yep, I'd rather _not_ have IBIS in an R7 personally , I'd rather have a more solid sensor mount with better heat dissipation and I'd much prefer a BSI stacked sensor too !


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 14, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There were several ‘newly-developed’ 18 MP APS-C sensors before the 24 MP sensors came along.


I think they did the same thing with those 18MP sensors too where each line had a sensor that varied slightly from the others, even though they were all 18MP. Moving forward, hopefully, they can get some cost savings by just having the same sensors and differentiating on features, body size, buttons, etc. Fabbing sensors isn't exactly cheap, and they can't be doing themselves any favors to have so many different sensor variations, even if it is as relatively simple as just changing the pigments/dyes used in the CFA filters. From what I understand, that's an integral part of the chip making process, so it's not like they're just taking a sensor chip and slapping a different CFA filter on the top when they're putting the camera together on the production line.


----------



## mariosk1gr (May 14, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> Why 90d?
> 
> 80D have 24MP, 90D 32MP.


I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.


----------



## SnowMiku (May 14, 2022)

mariosk1gr said:


> I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.


That's a good point about going backwards with the MP with the R10 compared to the 90D. The 90D did get a few 7D like features with the Joystick, I think they done that because they already decided they were not going to release a 7D mk III. I think the R10 may go back to around 80D level again to differentiate itself enough from the R7.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> If memory serves, the 80D was the first APS-C sensor where the ADC was on chip, giving it much better DR over the 70D and 7DII.
> 
> All that being said, if you look at the color response to it compared to other 24MP APS-C sensors from Canon, the 80D WB multipliers have RGB 1.75, 1, 1.75, the M6 has 1.45, 1, 1.35, the M100 has 1.49, 1, 1.37, the 2000D has 2.08, 1, 1.75, etc. Despite that they're all APS-C and roughly 24MP, the different measured white balance multipliers seems to indicate that they're not all exactly the same sensor.


Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.

Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.


----------



## ashmadux (May 14, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Why is it? I’ve never had a Camera with IBIS before and my pictures are fine. It’d be a nice addition but is in no way a crucial feature.



"No way crucial.." _to you_. 

No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.

Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.

*Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.*

If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**


** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks


----------



## ashmadux (May 14, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.
> 
> Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.



The difference in color from the old T2i is closer to the M1 (original), and MUCH better than the flat colors of the m50 and m62. I own all of them all of them, and I'm extremely bothered by the desaturated color profiles of the m62 especially.


----------



## ashmadux (May 14, 2022)

Jethro said:


> But, your current M bodies don't have IBIS either, so why would that stop you replacing them with a successor without it? If they are intending to keep the form factor (and $s) comparable to the M series, then IBIS is unlikely. Some of the competitors do (of course) have IBIS, but it's always a compromise on image quality / $s / features, no matter what body we're talking about.


Simple. Those are very old cameras, and I'm looking to upgrade - in the same small aspc form factor.

New bodies should have it as a standard feature. The sensor quality is debatable, however the lack of IBIS is killer when shutter slap is also a factor.


----------



## sanj (May 14, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> "No way crucial.." _to you_.
> 
> No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
> 
> ...


It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 14, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> The 80D predates the M50 and, as far as I know, all the other 24mp APS-C Canon cameras. So yes, its sensor was newly developed at the time.


Calling myself out on this one. The T6i predates the 80D by a year.


----------



## John Wilde (May 14, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.*


It's not just Canon: 

The Nikon Z50 doesn't have IBIS.
The Sony ZV-E10 doesn't have IBIS


----------



## Skux (May 14, 2022)

sanj said:


> It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'.


Yeah just hold the camera steady lol


----------



## Otara (May 14, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> "No way crucial.." _to you_.
> 
> No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.



I can respect that as an achievement, but by definition you've made yourself an outlier.


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

Much rather have BSI stacked sensor than IBIS as this would make a significant difference for low light performance and faster read outs reducing rolling shutter and improving buffering, etc.
The IS in my EF100-400 ii and the RF100-500 is perfectly adequate without IBIS


----------



## Chig (May 14, 2022)

One option with the R7 that interests me is the use of a speed booster EF-RF adapter allowing for an almost full frame performance with EF glass when low light performance is needed more than reach.
Canon's own Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 0.71x which would mean my EF400 f/2.8 would be equivalent FOV to 460mm lens with a crop factor of only 1.15:1 instead of 1.62:1
Potentially Metabones or Viltrox (or even Canon) may make an EF-RF 0.62x giving a full frame 1:1 equivalence .


----------



## sanj (May 15, 2022)

Skux said:


> Yeah just hold the camera steady lol


True. But in case you are being sarcastic, here are the obvious other choices: Use a higher shutter, use a tripod, use higher Iso, and use a wider aperture. You will get by!


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 15, 2022)

jordanisaak said:


> Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.
> 
> Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.


Those white balance multipliers are what DXOMark measured for a standard CIE 5000K light source. They use the same standard light source when measuring all cameras, and the numbers they publish are what you have to have to get a neutral white with that light source. My own experience with the cameras I have on hand mirrors that. The different 24MP class APS-C sensors from Canon do indeed have different white balance multipliers per camera line.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 15, 2022)

sanj said:


> True. But in case you are being sarcastic, here are the obvious other choices: Use a higher shutter, use a tripod, use higher Iso, and use a wider aperture. You will get by!


While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?

At one time, these were all called "crutches" by some people who learned without them and felt they were unnecessary if you knew what you were doing.

Some people are perfectly happy setting up a tripod or adjusting their shutter, aperture, and ISO. Others are willing to let the technology help them get the shot. Neither way is wrong, neither way makes you a "better" photographer, and neither way guarantees better pictures.


----------



## jordanisaak (May 15, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Those white balance multipliers are what DXOMark measured for a standard CIE 5000K light source. They use the same standard light source when measuring all cameras, and the numbers they publish are what you have to have to get a neutral white with that light source. My own experience with the cameras I have on hand mirrors that. The different 24MP class APS-C sensors from Canon do indeed have different white balance multipliers per camera line.


OK, thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 15, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> "No way crucial.." _to you_.
> 
> No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
> 
> ...


Nope, IBIS only offers you the ability to lower your shutter speed, you can still take the image at higher ISOs without IBIS. If that shot it THAT important to you then buy a body with IBIS.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 15, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?
> 
> At one time, these were all called "crutches" by some people who learned without them and felt they were unnecessary if you knew what you were doing.
> 
> Some people are perfectly happy setting up a tripod or adjusting their shutter, aperture, and ISO. Others are willing to let the technology help them get the shot. Neither way is wrong, neither way makes you a "better" photographer, and neither way guarantees better pictures.


That's not a sound argument, because many, if not most Canon lenses already have IS, which usually does the bulk of the work for stabilisation on IBIS bodies, the IBIS typically adds something like one or two stops on top of that, and IBIS is less effective at stabilising longer focal length lenses. It's not like lens stabilisation has been absent for the last decade or two or more and IBIS makes that big a difference!

IBIS is not necessary to everyone, it makes stuff all difference if you're shooting off a tripod, or shoot at very high shutter speeds.

Just because a new features is available on camera bodies, doesn't mean it is useful in every scenario, is desirable, or should be used. *It depends on what you use your camera for. *IBIS will make certain situations worse.

From https://www.fenchel-janisch.com/camera-stabilization-ibis-when-to-use-it-when-not-to/

_Turn IBIS off:_

_ Wide-angle (under 28mm full-frame): Wobble effect visible in the corners and delayed reaction when panning or tilting with IBIS on._
_ Car mounts: If the car is visible it will lead to a weird effect that shows unwanted motion of the IBIS._
_ Tripod: Every touch/motion of the fluid head can lead to a wobble effect. Panning with tele-photo lenses won’t be smooth with IBIS on._
_ Long exposure photography (on tripod): Just like OIS can lead to blurry results it’s the same with IBIS. Turn off when timelapsing._
If you were to say that IBIS is important to you, for whatever your reasoning is, then you'd have a very sound argument!


----------



## stevelee (May 15, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?


Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 15, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.


Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 15, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.





LogicExtremist said:


> Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses!



Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.


----------



## Hector1970 (May 15, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.
> 
> My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.
> 
> ...


A well written clarification. Nice to see


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 15, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.
> 
> My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.
> 
> ...


Maybe you didn't express it clearly, thanks for clarifying! I read it as a bit of an exaggerated statement conflating the need for IBIS with other technologies such as AF, so I placed some perspective around what i thought you said. My comment was a general statement about modern photography and wasn't aimed at you, but maybe my comment was not that clear either. 

Just like you, I also don't have a need for IBIS based on the type of photography I do, nor do I use my ILC for video. I tend to set my flash to manual for the way I use it.

If people are into photography to take photos and develop their photography skills, they can appreciate photography with all manner of equipment. On the other hand, if they're into photography for the sake and love of technology, well, then they'll only be satisfied with the latest gear.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 15, 2022)

Ok, 1/2 way through the month, even more in Oz!


----------



## Dragon (May 15, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> *Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.*


IBIS will not go in cheap cameras because it is expensive to implement, not simply because Canon is trying to segment the lines. Sony has made very similar decisions and Minolta (which Sony bought) invented IBIS. If you want a cheap camera, you will get a mix of features that that will give you the best pictures you can get for that price. More money, more features. Further, IBIS is of little use with long telephoto lenses and "reach" has been the mantra of the vast majority of those hoping for such (a) camera(s). Folks with an R5 who want more reach will likely go for the R7. Folks with an RP, R, or even R6 may well settle for the R10, but we have yet to see the physical and control differences, so a little early to call accurately. The primary clue that neither of these is a Rebel or M50 replacement is the sparse lens offering. My bet is that the 18-45 is a cheap FF UW and that leaves the 18-150 (likely a ported over M lens) as the only true APS-c choice. That, and a future port of the M 11-22 makes sense if both cameras are meant to be "reach" bodies with ancillary stand-alone utility, but it makes no sense for a general-purpose entry level body. This may all change over the next year or two, but Canon will watch and listen for a while before the next move.


----------



## unfocused (May 15, 2022)

stevelee said:


> …The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.


The best picture I’ve shot is the next one.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 15, 2022)

unfocused said:


> The best picture I’ve shot is the next one.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 15, 2022)

I think Canon could have made a little effort with the lenses and make them brighter or wider. 
Only 29mm on the wide end is not especially amazing, even the tiny and very cheap M kit lens starts at 24mm equivalent.


----------



## Rocky (May 15, 2022)

stevelee said:


> Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.


All those auto everything cameras make me become a very sloppy photographer


----------



## reefroamer (May 15, 2022)

I’m not expecting Canon to put a big bet on APS-C bodies or lenses. Has anyone seen good data that shows APSC-C is a growth/growing market? I haven't but may have missed it. Both an R7 and R10 could be produced with minimal investments by Canon just to test the waters.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 15, 2022)

Rocky said:


> All those auto evertthing cameras make me become a very snoppy photographer


Oh, I thought you said...


----------



## Kharan (May 16, 2022)

xelaq said:


> These all have useless viewangles on APS-C, you pay full-frame glass and at least the 24-105 & 70-200 are NOT small. On APS-C a 50mm = not really a portrait lens, 35mm = not really a 50mm, 24-105 missing the wide end etc. EF-M22 is a small lens, EF-M32 is small and a true 50 equivalent etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why a a unified mount is shit. If you look at at EF-mount, Z-mount or F-mount the APS-C lenses were always bigger than needed, half assed and missing important lenses, b/c you can always gEt ThE fUlLfRaMe LeNs and ApS-c Is EnTrY tO FuLlFrAmE.


You apparently don't know much about the history of photography. For decades, entry level zooms started around 35mm. Heck, Tamron now make a very expensive, very desirable 35-150mm f/2-2.8 that basically covers the essential range for portrait and event photographers. 75mm lenses are used widely in the cinema field, where they're often seen as great companions to 50mm lenses. Jun Hirokawa, a legendary lens designer for Pentax, felt that 77mm was the ideal portrait focal length over 85mm or 90mm. 55mm and 58mm kit lenses were much more common in the '60s and '70s, before everyone settled on 50mm as the standard focal length.
What you seem to perceive as the 'correct' angles of view are a relatively recent product of the last three decades. It took until the 2000's for 24mm to become a common focal length, and with it came the much more widespread rise of 70mm, a focal length that's used for more portraits than any other (thanks to it being a typical end of constant f/2.8 zooms). It's all very, very relative.


----------



## Kharan (May 16, 2022)

Dragon said:


> IBIS will not go in cheap cameras because it is expensive to implement, not simply because Canon is trying to segment the lines. Sony has made very similar decisions and Minolta (which Sony bought) invented IBIS. If you want a cheap camera, you will get a mix of features that that will give you the best pictures you can get for that price. More money, more features. Further, IBIS is of little use with long telephoto lenses and "reach" has been the mantra of the vast majority of those hoping for such (a) camera(s).


I beg to differ. Pentax have been offering Shake Reduction in all but their cheapest cameras for decades now... and Sony used to do the same, back on the A-mount. Their DSLRs (and later SLTs) all had SteadyShot. *All*. And they competed well on price against Canon and Nikon. Olympus have been putting IBIS on almost everything as well, and Panasonic followed suit a couple of years ago on most bodies. I don't buy the price argument - if much smaller, less profitable manufacturers can add it, even to very small cameras, then cost is not the issue. It's almost surely "differentiation" (AKA the cripple hammer, which in this case is used by the Big Three, not just Canon).


----------



## John Wilde (May 16, 2022)

reefroamer said:


> Has anyone seen good data that shows APSC-C is a growth/growing market?


For future growth, Canon needs something affordable for first-time camera buyers. The R10 will probably be somewhere in that range.

It's only one country, but (Source: BCN) the APS-C M50/KissM is the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan.

Last year, (CIPA) 4,963,682 "Lenses for smaller than 35mm format Cameras" were shipped. I assume that most of those were kit lenses, that came with non-FF cameras.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 16, 2022)

Rocky said:


> All those auto everything cameras make me become a very sloppy photographer


Or does it allow you to strongly emphasize composition?


----------



## Rocky (May 16, 2022)

Kharan said:


> You apparently don't know much about the history of photography. For decades, entry level zooms started around 35mm. Heck, Tamron now make a very expensive, very desirable 35-150mm f/2-2.8 that basically covers the essential range for portrait and event photographers. 75mm lenses are used widely in the cinema field, where they're often seen as great companions to 50mm lenses. Jun Hirokawa, a legendary lens designer for Pentax, felt that 77mm was the ideal portrait focal length over 85mm or 90mm. 55mm and 58mm kit lenses were much more common in the '60s and '70s, before everyone settled on 50mm as the standard focal length.
> What you seem to perceive as the 'correct' angles of view are a relatively recent product of the last three decades. It took until the 2000's for 24mm to become a common focal length, and with it came the much more widespread rise of 70mm, a focal length that's used for more portraits than any other (thanks to it being a typical end of constant f/2.8 zooms). It's all very, very relative.


45mm has been "standard focal" length for a long time even since pre WW II. Except Lieca choose the 50mm. Here comes the SLR (Exakta, Pre WW II) 58mm was used as " standard lens", due to the long fringe distance and avialble type of glass, they cannot design a good 50mm lens. Pantax, Minolta etc choose 55mm later due to more mature lens design. Later on, SLR was able to use 50mm as "standard lens" due to more mature design and more available type of glass. The "Holy Trinity" for Leica ( range finder) has been alway 35, 50 and 90. 77mm is a very unusual focal length for 135 film camera. As for zoom started at 35mm that is also due to the design problem in the old days (in the 60's). First zoom llens is called ZOOMAR made by Voigtlander*, in the 60's for it SLR. It started at 35 mm due to design restriction.*


----------



## Otara (May 16, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses!



About as much as they think about sculptors or painters I suspect.


----------



## Rocky (May 16, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Or does it allow you to strongly emphasize composition?


Yes, But with high pixel count and photoshop I can be a little bit sloppy too. P.S. I cut my teeth on photography by doing Kodakchrome. No adjustment and no cropping after the shutter is pushed. Also Kodakchrome is not cheap. Has to be sent to Australia for processing. So I was very careful before I press the shutter release everytime.


----------



## Martin Ambrens (May 16, 2022)

Is it just me - or do all the R7 and R10 mock up pics - look like they have full frame sensors in the bodies - and not crop sensors.
(CR used to get this right. What's happened?)


----------



## lustyd (May 16, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> At one time, these were all called "crutches" by some people who learned without them and felt they were unnecessary if you knew what you were doing.


The differemce here is that there are other ways to build that digital crutch with less complexity and engineering. I don't think anyone is saying image sabilisation isn't great, but IBIS as a specific technology is unnecessary and complex, and like it or not adds cost. GoPro have neither lens nor sensor stabilisation and yet somehow don't suffer at all from movement in a tiny lightweight body. The main issue here is people with "decades of experience" not accepting change and insisting that they know best. With technology sometimes no experience at all is better.


----------



## Gino_FOTO (May 16, 2022)

RF-S version of a 22mm and 32mm would be nice, also definitive dot towards M system.


----------



## stevelee (May 16, 2022)

Rocky said:


> 45mm has been "standard focal" length for a long time even since pre WW II.


Theoretical "normal" is around 43mm. My first 35mm camera was a Yashica rangefinder with a fixed 45mm lens. By using the same focal length all the time, my brain got used to that perspective, and I could previsualize compositions when I didn't even have the camera with me. Sometimes I would come back to the spot and take the picture. It affected how I saw things, appreciating beauty and order in ordinary scenes and things. I'm probably a better photographer today than if I had started off with the level of control I have now.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 16, 2022)

Will Canon stick with the 1.6x crop factor? With a new RF mount, how likely will it choose a 1.5 crop factor like other manufacturers?


----------



## jordanisaak (May 16, 2022)

Random Orbits said:


> Will Canon stick with the 1.6x crop factor? With a new RF mount, how likely will it choose a 1.5 crop factor like other manufacturers?


That would probably make adapted EF-S lenses either vignette heavily or have bad corner quality. They would also have to develop new sensors from scratch instead of refining what they already have.

Seems unlikely.


----------



## sanj (May 16, 2022)

Rocky said:


> All those auto everything cameras make me become a very sloppy photographer


Not me. I like all the help modern cameras provide. I lap them up. I could do without the added help under normal circumstances, but when the going gets tough, all the added help from the camera is appreciated: Good AF, Good Exposure, Stabilization, Flippy screen etc etc come in real handy.


----------



## stevelee (May 16, 2022)

Part of the art and craft of photography is to decide what is important to control and what is just as well left to the hardware/software. As has been suggested, playing with dials and menus can be distracting, and sometimes unnecessarily so.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 16, 2022)

Rocky said:


> All those auto everything cameras make me become a very sloppy photographer



I don't agree. It's much better to focus on composition, the subject and the story in the image and video than worrying about AF, focus point position, exposure, etc, etc


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't agree. It's much better to focus on composition, the subject and the story in the image and video than worrying about AF, focus point position, exposure, etc, etc


Oh, come off it. Real image-makers don't use all those fancy, new-fangled gadgetry tools. They create images the old fashioned, tried-and-true way.


----------



## jam05 (May 17, 2022)

lote82 said:


> Hard times for the "M is not dead" fraction!


Yeah, we have heard that for nearly a decade now. High doubt that Canons newest offerings will weigh in and be as small as the M6 mk 2 (34mp). Would def have to come minus an EVF to even replace the M6 on same gimbal.


----------



## jam05 (May 17, 2022)

In as much as Sony sells it's aps-c ZV-E10 for vloggers right along with its other different aps-c mount cameras, Canon has continued to do the same with its M50 and M6 with much success. Despite the traditionalist photographers that have yet to grasp any other form of content creation other than theirs.


----------



## rawshooter (May 17, 2022)

Same here I'd take a R10 pocket cam as addition to my Canon gear. If it does Canons autoISO with settable lower shutter limit. Finally getting rid of the outdated Nikon J5.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, come off it. Real image-makers don't use all those fancy, new-fangled gadgetry tools. They create images the old fashioned, tried-and-true way.
> 
> View attachment 203611



But he has AI real time processing and 3D vision lens!


----------



## lustyd (May 17, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But he has AI real time processing and 3D vision lens!


Actual Intelligence is so old fashioned though


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 17, 2022)

lustyd said:


> Actual Intelligence is so old fashioned though


Like how common sense is uncommon?


----------



## Bob Howland (May 17, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Like how common sense is uncommon?


Actually, common sense is domain specific. People with no experience in that domain appear to have no common sense.


----------



## stevelee (May 17, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Like how common sense is uncommon?


If you flip a coin 99 times and get 99 heads, common sense tells you that the next flip will almost surely be tails.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2022)

stevelee said:


> If you flip a coin 99 times and get 99 heads, common sense tells you that the next flip will almost surely be tails.


Of course that common sense would be wrong.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 17, 2022)

Are we heading into Modality of Mind and Fodor & Chomsky territory? It might be better than these crop circles posts, lol.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 17, 2022)

stevelee said:


> If you flip a coin 99 times and get 99 heads, common sense tells you that the next flip will almost surely be tails.


Common sense should tell you to make sure that the coin isn't double headed.


----------



## John Wilde (May 17, 2022)

No price leaks yet?  My guess is that the R10 will cost about the same as the Nikon Z50, $1,000 with lens.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 17, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I posted this line-up as a suggestion in September 2021 (and even earlier) in another thread:
> 
> 
> R5s is surely coming at one point, so will the R1. After the upcoming announcement we are almost there!  For four years in the making and two of those years being hit with the pandemic, it already looks like a great line-up.
> ...


whats the point of an R5s. Seems like canon is using 1-9 for the mirrorless. If the R5C is just an R5 with a fan basically, i cant see them naming a whole new sensor and camera an R5 still. I think we are more likley to see an R2 before an R5. The number 4 is bad luck in Japan so I dont know if we will see an R4.


----------



## C4RBON (May 17, 2022)

RayValdez360 said:


> whats the point of an R5s. Seems like canon is using 1-9 for the mirrorless. If the R5C is just an R5 with a fan basically, i cant see them naming a whole new sensor and camera an R5 still. I think we are more likley to see an R2 before an R5. The number 4 is bad luck in Japan so I dont know if we will see an R4.


R5s would be the long-rumored high-resolution sensor in the body of an R5. It's just like how the 5DS (and 5DSR) were high-resolution sensors in the body of the 5D mk3 (among other changes). With R3 and R6 already taken, and "4" being bad luck (as stated above), I don't see any other integers available that would make sense. R5 followed by a letter to denote a specialized R5 version, like "C" for video and "S" for resolution, makes plenty of sense to me.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 18, 2022)

C4RBON said:


> R5s would be the long-rumored high-resolution sensor in the body of an R5. It's just like how the 5DS (and 5DSR) were high-resolution sensors in the body of the 5D mk3 (among other changes). With R3 and R6 already taken, and "4" being bad luck (as stated above), I don't see any other integers available that would make sense. R5 followed by a letter to denote a specialized R5 version, like "C" for video and "S" for resolution, makes plenty of sense to me.


45Mp is already a high resolution. Very few people would need more. I just feel like the R5S sounds like BS.


----------



## victorshikhman (May 18, 2022)

If RF-S APS-C cameras can extend the life of my EF-S lenses, I'll probably buy one, especially with good IBIS. EF-S lenses were/are by far the best value around, with very good optics and amazing stabilization in the later zooms especially. It would easily take $3-4k in new lens buys to recreate my EF-S focal range, sacrificing a lot of weight and flexibility. If they cripple the RF-S bodies to not adapt EF-S lenses well, I'll use EF-M/EF-S bodies a few more years and jump to full frame at some point, but no guarantees it'll be Canon.


----------



## John Wilde (May 18, 2022)

RayValdez360 said:


> 45Mp is already a high resolution. Very few people would need more. I just feel like the R5S sounds like BS.


In a 2015 press release, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, Still waiting.


----------



## bergstrom (May 18, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Are we heading into Modality of Mind and Fodor & Chomsky territory? It might be better than these crop circles posts, lol.



Modularity


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> In a 2015 press release, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, Still waiting.


Well, apparently you can buy a 120 mp APS-H sensor.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 18, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Modularity


that too, lol.


----------



## tataylino (May 18, 2022)

18-45mm is a bit limiting. should be better if they made it 16-50mm or 18-55mm. 
My guess is... because the R10 has same form factor as the M10, and the 18-45mm is a perfect size to match the R10 small size.... ???


----------



## Rocky (May 18, 2022)

15- 45 is a better range for APS-C than 16-50 or 18-55, especially as a tourist.


----------



## Skux (May 18, 2022)

Yeah 18-45 seems pretty pointless to me unless it's a tiny pancake lens. With such a narrow range I'd rather just use something like the EF-M 22mm which will be able to shoot at much wider apertures.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 18, 2022)

Rocky said:


> 15- 45 is a better range for APS-C than 16-50 or 18-55, especially as a tourist.


Well, there's the tourist market, which is already served pretty good by EF-M, then the pro APS-C market, which is better served with an APS-C holy trinity, something like 10-18, 16-45, and 45-135 in at least constant aperture f/4 if not 2.8.

Before I went full frame, I had 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 in ef-s. I wished it was all at least constant f/4. The full frame 24-105L (or 24-70L) and 100-400 or 100-500 would be fine for the longer end, and all they really need to do is make a solid f/2.8 (or f/4) 10-24 for APS-C. 16-35 can be made to work, but really, at least 10-18 or 10-24 would be better.


----------



## okaro (May 18, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> So looks like they pushed the R7 announcement up again? Was March, then August, now May? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
> 
> I do hope someone makes an EF-M to RF adapter. It'll need optics, so it can be a speed booster as well. But just a plain optical adapter would be nice as well. Don't want to re-buy my EF-m stuff in RF once/if my M50 stops working. Knew this day was coming. Loved the M. Will miss it.
> 
> ...


It does not work that way. You cannot boost APS-C lenses. There is noting where to get the extra light. Also it would be a tele converter.


----------



## Fletchahh (May 18, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Well, there's the tourist market, which is already served pretty good by EF-M, then the pro APS-C market, which is better served with an APS-C holy trinity, something like 10-18, 16-45, and 45-135 in at least constant aperture f/4 if not 2.8.
> 
> Before I went full frame, I had 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 in ef-s. I wished it was all at least constant f/4. The full frame 24-105L (or 24-70L) and 100-400 or 100-500 would be fine for the longer end, and all they really need to do is make a solid f/2.8 (or f/4) 10-24 for APS-C. 16-35 can be made to work, but really, at least 10-18 or 10-24 would be better.


Not exactly a holy trinity, but if people are willing to look at adapting EF-S lenses, there are still good fast zoom options such as the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/1.8, especially with the R7 since neither of them have IS.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 18, 2022)

tataylino said:


> 18-45mm is a bit limiting. should be better if they made it 16-50mm or 18-55mm.
> My guess is... because the R10 has same form factor as the M10, and the 18-45mm is a perfect size to match the R10 small size.... ???



The 18-45 has to be really tiny or cheap with that focal length/aperture combination. It's 29-70mm, pretty boring.

Even Nikon's cheap 16-50 is better and that lens is very sharp and small at only 135g.


----------



## Dragon (May 18, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The 18-45 has to be really tiny or cheap with that focal length/aperture combination. It's 29-70mm, pretty boring.
> 
> Even Nikon's cheap 16-50 is better and that lens is very sharp and small at only 135g.


Unless it is a very cheap FF lens as reported for the last year. Then it makes perfect sense. The R line needs a cheap FF UW zoom.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 18, 2022)

Fletchahh said:


> Not exactly a holy trinity, but if people are willing to look at adapting EF-S lenses, there are still good fast zoom options such as the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and 50-100 f/1.8, especially with the R7 since neither of them have IS.


True. Sigma does make good glass, but there are other things to take into consideration if you're a working professional, like getting your stuff serviced through CPS, because ...life and accidents do happen, and if you're depending on your gear to make a living, you can either have multiple copies as an insurance policy, or stick with same brand and have coverage through their support network.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 18, 2022)

If the R7 specs are actually true, the price tag must be higher than on the R6... 
Even the supposed specs of the R10 sound quite a bit unrealistic or it'll too will have a high price tag for an APS-C camera.

I love my R, but since FPS specs of the R are more than outdated, I might be interested in a camera with a high-frame rate as a complement. It will depend on the price tag, FPS and auto-focus abilities. I wouldn't care for the rest. 

RF 18-45mm sounds horrible imho, unless it is super compact and lightweight. If not, the loss of 10mm focal range (compared to EF 18-55mm) does seem a like a big loss.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 18, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> In a 2015 press release, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, Still waiting.


I know about it but the need and demand isn't that great for such a camera. When it does come out or something similar, the youtubian machine will spin, having people fighting and bitching about how every camera now needs 120MP. Sure I would get one. I want a GFX100 but no way in hell am I spending my money on it at that price plus buying their lenses.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (May 18, 2022)

RayValdez360 said:


> whats the point of an R5s.


the high resolution DSLR were named 5dR and 5ds. 

Given that Canon is now copying their DSLR line up in terms of numbers by replacing the 5d with R5 and 6d (R6), it makes most sense of naming a high resolution camera R5s. 

There’s no way Canon will release an R2 as high mega Pixel Camera because people would expect a different camera body and feature to differentiate it from the R5. This would cause a lot of R&D costs and given that it will be niche camera, they won’t do that. They’ll take the great ergonomics of the R5, put in a different sensor and name it R5s or R5R(es). The fun thing is: people will love it  

R2 is a possible name for a camera, no doubt about it. But it won’t be the rumored high res one.


----------



## John Wilde (May 18, 2022)

Skux said:


> Yeah 18-45 seems pretty pointless to me unless it's a tiny pancake lens.


The M kit lens is 15-45. The 18-45 is probably similar, but somewhat smaller.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 18, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> True. Sigma does make good glass, but there are other things to take into consideration if you're a working professional, like getting your stuff serviced through CPS, because ...life and accidents do happen, and if you're depending on your gear to make a living, you can either have multiple copies as an insurance policy, or stick with same brand and have coverage through their support network.


Does CPS service EF-S lenses? I didn’t know that.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (May 18, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> the high resolution DSLR were named 5dR and 5ds.
> 
> Given that Canon is now copying their DSLR line up in terms of numbers by replacing the 5d with R5 and 6d (R6), it makes most sense of naming a high resolution camera R5s.
> 
> ...


The 5DS, 5DSR, and 7D Mark II all had the same pixel density, just on different size sensors.

if Canon does that again, and the R7 really is 32.5 MP, we’re looking at about 83 MP for the R5S.


----------



## Czardoom (May 19, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> So looks like they pushed the R7 announcement up again? Was March, then August, now May? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
> 
> I do hope someone makes an EF-M to RF adapter. It'll need optics, so it can be a speed booster as well. But just a plain optical adapter would be nice as well. Don't want to re-buy my EF-m stuff in RF once/if my M50 stops working. Knew this day was coming. Loved the M. Will miss it.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you'll feel a lot better when the M50 III is announced. I'd say the odds are about 50/50 that the R10 is a mid level replacement for the 90D and that the M system is still alive and kicking.


----------



## Dragon (May 19, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I'm sure you'll feel a lot better when the M50 III is announced. I'd say the odds are about 50/50 that the R10 is a mid level replacement for the 90D and that the M system is still alive and kicking.


That was my take. The M6 II had to go because it was a little too much of the same, but with the small battery, there was no way to put a Digic-x in an M camera. I don't think either of these will be particularly small cameras and further, I suspect the 18-45 is an entry FF lens that serves dual purpose.


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 19, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> the high resolution DSLR were named 5dR and 5ds.
> 
> Given that Canon is now copying their DSLR line up in terms of numbers by replacing the 5d with R5 and 6d (R6), it makes most sense of naming a high resolution camera R5s.
> 
> ...


Why wouldnt they change the body alittle. At 100MP you would think they would do dual cf express unless it is a super low fps camera. I would think they would want to move away from the R5 since the series is known for overheating. The first question will be if it overheats if they made an R5S. The R5C already shows it isnt a reflection of the 5D series entirely. That being said I am not discounting an r5 mark II one day in a few years


----------



## vjlex (May 19, 2022)

I always get worried when we get this close to the release date on a CR3 and there are no other details yet... less than a week to go! Really hoping these will be true.


----------



## vangelismm (May 19, 2022)

Dragon said:


> That was my take. The M6 II had to go because it was a little too much of the same, but with the small battery, there was no way to put a Digic-x in an M camera. I don't think either of these will be particularly small cameras and further, I suspect the 18-45 is an entry FF lens that serves dual purpose.


I would not get upset if they switch to xxD battery on cameras like RP, M50 and M6.


----------



## Dragon (May 19, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> I would not get upset if they switch to xxD battery on cameras like RP, M50 and M6.


All those bodies would be substantially bigger and heavier with an LP-E6 battery. Something like the RP would be OK with that, but it would defeat the primary purpose of the M cameras, which is why I think the M50 will be around for some time yet. We will know more Tuesday when we see just how small the R10 actually is.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 19, 2022)

Dragon said:


> All those bodies would be substantially bigger and heavier with an LP-E6 battery. Something like the RP would be OK with that, but it would defeat the primary purpose of the M cameras, which is why I think the M50 will be around for some time yet. We will know more Tuesday when we see just how small the R10 actually is.



The Sony A6600 uses the big Z battery and has image stabilization and EVF. Despite all these it's not really any bigger than Canon's M50. So it's possible!


----------



## Dragon (May 20, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The Sony A6600 uses the big Z battery and has image stabilization and EVF. Despite all these it's not really any bigger than Canon's M50. So it's possible!
> 
> View attachment 203684


It is 17% thicker and 30% heavier even with the funky little offset EVF and without a fully articulated screen. It is also well over twice the price. All else being equal, bigger batteries make bigger cameras.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 20, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Does CPS service EF-S lenses? I didn’t know that.


I've personally never had a need to have any of my EF-S lenses serviced, but when I had those lenses, I had them registered in my CPS account, so I'd be surprised if Canon didn't.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 20, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The 5DS, 5DSR, and 7D Mark II all had the same pixel density, just on different size sensors.
> 
> if Canon does that again, and the R7 really is 32.5 MP, we’re looking at about 83 MP for the R5S.


They could also go from the 45 MP of the R5 to ~61MP if they base the pixel density off of a 24MP APS-C camera. Even though a jump of 15+ MP seems large, at those image sizes, it's literally going from 8192 to 9600 pixels across the long edge of the frame. It is more resolution, but not dramatically so. Basing it off the 32.5MP of the 90D/M6II would be a really big jump. I'm not sure everybody really needs that much.


----------



## Dragon (May 20, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> They could also go from the 45 MP of the R5 to ~61MP if they base the pixel density off of a 24MP APS-C camera. Even though a jump of 15+ MP seems large, at those image sizes, it's literally going from 8192 to 9600 pixels across the long edge of the frame. It is more resolution, but not dramatically so. Basing it off the 32.5MP of the 90D/M6II would be a really big jump. I'm not sure everybody really needs that much.


My bet would be at least 83MP and wouldn't be surprised by 100MP. Canon won't let Sony have the MP crown for too long. They never do. Such a camera would certainly test the limits of those RF L lenses  .


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 20, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> I would not get upset if they switch to xxD battery on cameras like RP, M50 and M6.


That's why I think the RP is the "gateway" camera from the smaller cameras in their lineup. It uses the same battery, does SD card, for full frame, is easily the smallest camera Canon has made so far, is reasonably light with the 16 and 50 STM lenses, etc. It doesn't fit all the small and light market needs, but it hits a lot of them and delivers full frame to boot. Canon did say they were focusing on the higher margin parts of the camera business, so it makes sense that they'd lay down a pathway for the other users to follow to get into that market.


----------



## adrian_bacon (May 20, 2022)

Dragon said:


> My bet would be at least 83MP and wouldn't be surprised by 100MP. Canon won't let Sony have the MP crown for too long. They never do. Such a camera would certainly test the limits of those RF L lenses  .


True. What'd I'd really like to see is an APS-C camera that was 7680x5120 (~39.3MP, UHD video) and a full frame at the same pixel density, so 12400x8266 (~102MP). That would be pretty awesome.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> They could also go from the 45 MP of the R5 to ~61MP if they base the pixel density off of a 24MP APS-C camera. Even though a jump of 15+ MP seems large, at those image sizes, it's literally going from 8192 to 9600 pixels across the long edge of the frame. It is more resolution, but not dramatically so. Basing it off the 32.5MP of the 90D/M6II would be a really big jump. I'm not sure everybody really needs that much.


If you are talking about the mythical R5-s, the safest bet is the same pixel density as the R7 scaled up to full frame or around 83 mp. Sixty-one mp would be too low and doesn't leave enough room for the R5 MkII, which will probably be in the range of 50-60 mp when it gets released in a couple of years.


----------



## vangelismm (May 23, 2022)

Dragon said:


> All those bodies would be substantially bigger and heavier with an LP-E6 battery. Something like the RP would be OK with that, but it would defeat the primary purpose of the M cameras, which is why I think the M50 will be around for some time yet. We will know more Tuesday when we see just how small the R10 actually is.


"substantially bigger and heavier with an LP-E6 battery." 
A little bigger and insignificantly heavier.
The battery is not the reason why the 90D is heavier than M6.

LP-E12 is a joke on the M50.
M6 is not heavier with the LP-E17.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 23, 2022)

So the leaked photos of R7 dont inspire confidence in name, it looks like a mirrorless 77D with dual SD slots and is missing X-sync port, 3 pin shutter release and info panel. Also that AF-MF selector switch on front panel shows the stupidity of Canon in removing AF-MF switches from their RF lenses making this whole selector switch similar to Nikon's F mount DSLRs.
Google translate link to images of both R7 and R10:








キヤノン「EOS R7」「EOS R10」と思われるスペックと画像の情報


５ちゃんねるに書き込まれたキヤノンの新型EOS Rに関する情報が話題となっています。近日登場と噂の「EOS R…




asobinet-com.translate.goog


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 23, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So the leaked photos of R7 dont inspire confidence in name, it looks like a mirrorless 77D with dual SD slots and is missing X-sync port, 3 pin shutter release and info panel. Also that AF-MF selector switch on front panel shows the stupidity of Canon in removing AF-MF switches from their RF lenses making this whole selector switch similar to Nikon's F mount DSLRs.
> Google translate link to images of both R7 and R10:
> 
> 
> ...



Is there any point for the 3 pin shutter release when the camera has intervalometer and can be controller by smartphone?


----------



## vjlex (May 23, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> So the leaked photos of R7 dont inspire confidence in name, it looks like a mirrorless 77D with dual SD slots and is missing X-sync port, 3 pin shutter release and info panel. Also that AF-MF selector switch on front panel shows the stupidity of Canon in removing AF-MF switches from their RF lenses making this whole selector switch similar to Nikon's F mount DSLRs.
> Google translate link to images of both R7 and R10:
> 
> 
> ...


My first reaction was to dislike the on-body AF-MF selector, but thinking about it again, I think I might like that better. I've never been a big fan of tiny, flush switches on the lens. Especially some of which can have up to three switches. The front of the body seems like a nice, consistent location, regardless of which lens I'm using.


----------



## xps (May 23, 2022)

R7: I guess >2000€. Or more? And no Display???? Like an "Rebel"? No No No


----------



## vjlex (May 23, 2022)

xps said:


> R7: I guess >2000€. Or more? And no Display???? Like an "Rebel"? No No No


Honestly, the R7 looks like a $1500 camera. I'll be a little surprised if it's more than $2000.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 23, 2022)

vjlex said:


> My first reaction was to dislike the on-body AF-MF selector, but thinking about it again, I think I might like that better. I've never been a big fan of tiny, flush switches on the lens. Especially some of which can have up to three switches. The front of the body seems like a nice, consistent location, regardless of which lens I'm using.


Having switches in multiple places(for the lenses that have it) along with Exclusive OR condition for operation of AF selection makes it a odd situation especially in dark. If it was AF/MF selector on body exclusively from begining of R mount instead of on lens then it would have been convinient for non adopted lenses especially for shooting in dark.


----------



## Dragon (May 23, 2022)

vangelismm said:


> "substantially bigger and heavier with an LP-E6 battery."
> A little bigger and insignificantly heavier.
> The battery is not the reason why the 90D is heavier than M6.
> 
> ...


The M6 II is 20g heavier than the M50 II and that is without the evf.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.



$1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 10, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> $1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.


Only if sensor size isn't a factor!


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 10, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> $1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.


You responded to an old post before the information was available.
I think it is early to say "without limits and overheating", only a very select few have had their hands on it.
Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard.

Also if you read the post, it would be more$4k vs $3.5K. Get the R5 for $500 less and keep the $500.00.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> You responded to an old post before the information was available.
> I think it is early to say "without limits and overheating", only a very select few have had their hands on it.
> Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard.
> 
> Also if you read the post, it would be more$4k vs $3.5K. Get the R5 for $500 less and keep the $500.00.



"Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard."

It's not about what is the standard. The R7 won't create 7K videos, only 4K. 
The point is it's oversampling from the whole sensor area (7K), so the 4K video quality should be close to R5's 4K HQ but without the 30 minute record limit and probably no overheating concerns. 

So, the R5 will still have better low light performance, the R7 might be a much more usable video camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

RayValdez360 said:


> whats the point of an R5s. Seems like canon is using 1-9 for the mirrorless. If the R5C is just an R5 with a fan basically, i cant see them naming a whole new sensor and camera an R5 still. I think we are more likley to see an R2 before an R5. The number 4 is bad luck in Japan so I dont know if we will see an R4.





RayValdez360 said:


> 45Mp is already a high resolution. Very few people would need more. I just feel like the R5S sounds like BS.



I guess you thought the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, 1Ds Mark III (all higher resolution FF versions of the various APS-H 1D models), as well as the 5Ds and 5Ds R were all "bs" as well?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Is there any point for the 3 pin shutter release when the camera has intervalometer and can be controller by smartphone?



I'd much rather use a wired cable release that doesn't require any additional batteries or ruining my night vision with a phone screen when doing astro work. 

Sometimes one needs better shutter response than the slight lag with smartphone control, particularly when taking bulb exposures of something like fireworks, when the exact instant the shutter is opened and the exact instant the shutter is closed are much more important than the length of exposure.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> $1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.



The R5 is still listed at $3,899 at any reputable Canon dealer in the U.S. 

If you're talking about a "CPW" kind of deal, then wait until the R7 has been out almost two years and compare the "CPW" price of the R7 at that time.

$1,499 + $2,499 = $3,998, only $99 more than $3,899.

You then have two bodies that are extremely usable tools for different use cases. Having two bodies that can be used to hang a wider angle lens on the FF body and a longer lens on the APS-C body at the same time can also be very useful in many situations.

It is true that the R5 can do almost anything that either the R6 or the R7 can do, but it can't do much (besides 8K video) that either the R6 or the R7 could match. And it can't mount two different lenses at the same time. Or be its own backup when it has a glitch.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

xelaq said:


> I would prefer a 90mm lens, but that is pure personal preference. One reason why I like the Olympus 45mm so much. Great lens at an affordable price.
> See above, my disliking of 50mm as portrait prime is my personal opinion. YMMV
> 
> Instead of building on the extensive M userbase and fill in the gaps in the lens line up we get the same shoddy stuff we already have with a new mount. I dont see the point.



If you're talking Olympus, then you're into 4:3 territory.

Crop the ends of a Canon 1.6X APS-C 3:2 sensor to 4:3 you have a diagonal that puts you at ≈1.75X crop factor.

So now your 50mm Canon lens yields an AoV _very_ similar to your 45mm Oly lens. (43.75mm in "µ/3 equivalent" vs. 45mm - lens' actual focal lengths are often rounded more than that to the number they're marketed under.)

----------------------------------------------------------

The vast majority of the M user base worldwide never buy another lens after they buy the camera and whatever lens(es) they buy with the camera. They're not the same market as camera gearheads that are constantly looking for a new lens or body to yearn for. They're not the people that are looking for any "upgrade path". They're not vloggers than mindlessly follow the leader any time someone on YouTube tells them whatever they're using is now "trash" and they _must_ upgrade to the latest new toy.

They're the folks who are looking for a dedicated camera that is relatively compact, relatively light, and relatively inexpensive that they can use for special occasions, vacations, and other use cases when a smartphone isn't quite enough. They're then happy to use that same camera and lens(es) for the next several years.

They're also mostly in Asia and emerging markets in other parts of the world, not in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe (+AUS and NZ).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> Yeah, I don't know about that. All I know is the color balance multipliers are different and the technical specs that canon lists for the 80D lists a slightly larger sensor than what they usually do for APS-C. Of course, they couch it with an "approximately", so who knows what it actually is, all I know is that if you compare different canon APS-C sensors from different cameras (that have the same resolution) on DXO-mark, they don't all have the same white balance multipliers, which tells me that they aren't exactly the same sensor. You could also use dcraw to extract the full sensor array from the files and compare the dimensions if you wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if they were different dimensions. You'll need to use Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 files to DNG, then use dcraw to extract the raw sensor data from the DNG, and just use dcraw directly on the cr2 files.





adrian_bacon said:


> I think they did the same thing with those 18MP sensors too where each line had a sensor that varied slightly from the others, even though they were all 18MP. Moving forward, hopefully, they can get some cost savings by just having the same sensors and differentiating on features, body size, buttons, etc. Fabbing sensors isn't exactly cheap, and they can't be doing themselves any favors to have so many different sensor variations, even if it is as relatively simple as just changing the pigments/dyes used in the CFA filters. From what I understand, that's an integral part of the chip making process, so it's not like they're just taking a sensor chip and slapping a different CFA filter on the top when they're putting the camera together on the production line.




They may not be doing anything to the CFA. They could just be changing the tint/cut/response curve of the IR filter in the stack in front of the sensor. Possibly they are playing with the UV filter in the sensor stack as well.

With the "shelf" in the response to wavelengths in the "blue" range demonstrated by sensels filtered with "red" (they're actually more "yellow-orange" most transmissive to around 590-600nm to more closely mimic human retinal L-cone response at 564nm (lime-green!) than the 640nm "red" emitted by our emissive displays), playing with the amount and curves of near-IR and near-UV reduction would affect both the "R" and "B" response more than the green response.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> the high resolution DSLR were named 5dR and 5ds.


 
Actually, they were named 5Ds and 5Ds R.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

adrian_bacon said:


> True. What'd I'd really like to see is an APS-C camera that was 7680x5120 (~39.3MP, UHD video) and a full frame at the same pixel density, so 12400x8266 (~102MP). That would be pretty awesome.



8266 is not divisible by 16. Maybe 12,384 x 8256 or 12,432 x 8,288?

Pretty much every image sensor Canon has ever produced for a consumer ILC has sensel counts that are wholly divisible by 16 both horizontally and vertically. It helps simplify demosaicing and also resizing for thumbnails.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

gregedwards69 said:


> This isn't quite what I was getting at in my original proposition - I doubt RF users would be that concerned with EF-M glass and I realise going the other way round, to use EF-M on RF isn't at all practical or cost-effective.
> 
> My thought was _what if_ RF-S was simply EF-M with a new name, so you could use existing EF-M lenses and also RF lenses via an adaptor - exactly the same way as EOSM can use EF and EF-S lenses. Of course, this does mean you wouldn't be able to take your RF-S glass with you if you wanted to "upgrade" to FF. Similar (compatibility wise, not physically) to EF-S and EF in that regard.





neuroanatomist said:


> What you're suggesting is not really feasible.
> 
> Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.
> 
> EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.





HMC11 said:


> On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.



It's not even physically possible. The bayonet lugs on the RF mount extend more than 2mm behind the lens' flange. With a 54mm throat, the RF bayonet lugs are in too large a circle to fit inside the smaller 47mm throat of the EF-M mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Back in the 7D II days "reach" was tested. Smaller pixels do not translate to the 1.6 crop. The 7D II gave you about 20% of what people term "reach" over the 5D II. Then came along the 5Ds R and "reach" no longer existed. If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5. People still talk "reach", that is often an illusion. The real comparison is resolution, how it relates to other bodies with lower and greater pixel density and how does the "crop" body compare to a full frame body with a similar crop. "Reach" and the superiority of the 7D II line is one that many highly intelligent people bought into in earlier years and once they tested the theory changed their beliefs. However it is a marketing tool that is used to make you believe your 500mm is now a 800mm.
> 
> To the second part it depends on what "serious" means, but with its 55x200 mm attached it has taken some fine wildlife pictures for me. It has its place, in the pocket, the wives purse a backpack when weight really matters. It is, and always has been IMO, a glorified point and shoot.
> 
> With a 100x500 attached to any body both the pocket and wives purse will be eliminated. A small camera on this lens would have poor ergonomics IMO.





The 5D Mark III had already been around for over two years when the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in late 2014. The 7D Mark II's 4.09µm pixel pitch is 52.8% denser linearly than the 5D Mark III's 6.25µm pixel spacing.

Your "20%" comparison doesn't work between the between the 18MP 7D and the 21MP 5D Mark II, either. Pixel pitch was 4.3µm vs. 6.41µm, also roughly a 50% advantage for the 7D. The biggest problem with the 7D was that it couldn't AF two shots in a row at the same distance to save its own life. It also had an anti-aliasing filter that was too strong for its pixel pitch and was too noisy.

*The 2014 7D Mark II has essentially the same pixel density as the 2015 5Ds and 5Ds R, thus it has the same "reach". (It's 4.09µm vs. 4.14µm, so the crop body has a miniscule advantage in pixel density.) 

It also bursts at 10fps for 31 raw or as many JPEGs as your memory card can hold instead of only 5 fps for 14 raw or 510 JPEGs, and could be had for less than half the price of the 5Ds/R from 2015 until early 2021 when the 7D Mark II was discontinued and the prices of the 5Ds and 5Ds R were slashed by around 60%. *

Not to mention that those 7D Mark II raw files were less than half the size of the 5Ds/R raw files, which has significant implications for storage costs and time to transfer backups, as well as for rendering and processing times with raw convertor applications.

You pay your money and you make your choice. Which tool is "better" for a specific use case all depends upon what that use case entails. I can't imagine having to shoot the 200,000+ sports/action frames I've shot with my 7D Mark II since 2015 using a 5Ds/R instead any more than I can imagine using my 7D Mark II for all of the photoshoots where my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV were the better tools (the majority of jobs, though entailing far fewer total frames over the same 2015-present time period).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.



There's only $99 difference between an R6 + R7 ($3,998) and an R5 ($3,899) in the U.S. In countries, like the UK, that charge an inexplicable premium for the R5 (above and beyond the VAT), the R6 + R7 combo would probably be less than a single R5. 

The R5 can do almost anything either body can, but it can't do much (other than 8K video) that one or the other of the two other bodies can't do, and it can't mount two different lenses, like a long one and a wide one, at the same time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What’s with the flippy MF/AF switch on the front of these mock ups? No other R camera has this. What’s that about?



Innovation? 

There's also a DoF preview button in the middle of the switch.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 14, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> *The 2014 7D Mark II has essentially the same pixel density as the 2015 5Ds and 5Ds R, thus it has the same "reach". (It's 4.09µm vs. 4.14µm, so the crop body has a miniscule advantage in pixel density.) *



Thanks for making my point. 

Another note, when quoting someone use their quote. It is annoying to see a quote box with your name on it and words you never typed.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 14, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I guess you thought the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, 1Ds Mark III (all higher resolution FF versions of the various APS-H 1D models), as well as the 5Ds and 5Ds R were all "bs" as well?


those cameras are like 20 years old bruh escept the 5DS.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 15, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The R5 is still listed at $3,899 at any reputable Canon dealer in the U.S.
> 
> If you're talking about a "CPW" kind of deal, then wait until the R7 has been out almost two years and compare the "CPW" price of the R7 at that time.
> 
> ...



In UK the R5 is actually, £4299 vs £1349 for the R7.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Another note, when quoting someone use their quote. It is annoying to see a quote box with your name on it and words you never typed.



Everything in the quote box in my comment to which you replied was in your post.

Bold text in the middle of my comment is not a quote box.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2022)

RayValdez360 said:


> those cameras are like 20 years old bruh escept the 5DS.



And Canon is almost 100years old, "BRUH". 

The EOS system is 35 years old and they're still using much of the same branding as they did when it was introduced in 1987.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 18, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Thanks for making my point.



Thanks for leaving out the main part of my point:

*The 7D Mark II could shoot twice as fast for twice as many raw frames and infinitely* more JPEGs at half the price of the 5Ds R.*

[Edit} *For all practical purposes. One can shoot JPEGs at 10 fps with the 7D Mark II until the CDMA-7 CF memory card fills up or the battery dies.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 18, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Everything in the quote box in my comment to which you replied was in your post.
> 
> Bold text in the middle of my comment is not a quote box.


You did. When your comments appear inside a quote box with someone else's name on it. It appears as if they had previously said it.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 18, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Thanks for leaving out the main part of my point:
> 
> *The 7D Mark II could shoot twice as fast for twice as many raw frames and infinitely more JPEGs at half the price of the 5Ds R.*


You are partially right. I had two 7D Mark II. They could shoot twice the frames which half would be out of focus. So usable frames were about equal. You didn't have an infinite number of JPEGS, no computer could store that many. The 7D II was a *Cheaper *camera than the 5Ds R. Notice the word *Cheaper *rather than *Less Expensive *or *Better Value. *
As well when properly framed the 5Ds R had twice as many pixels on target and a great resolution advantage.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> You did. When your comments appear inside a quote box with someone else's name on it. It appears as if they had previously said it.



None of my comments appeared in anyone else's quote box. You might need to update your browser. Or maybe ease off the meds?

Here's a screenshot of my comment in question:




Here's a screenshot of the comment to which I was responding:




*Please point out to me and everyone else here a single word or punctuation mark that was inside the quote box of my comment that was not inside your original comment?*


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 19, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> You are partially right. I had two 7D Mark II. They could shoot twice the frames which half would be out of focus. So usable frames were about equal. You didn't have an infinite number of JPEGS, no computer could store that many. The 7D II was a *Cheaper *camera than the 5Ds R. Notice the word *Cheaper *rather than *Less Expensive *or *Better Value. *
> As well when properly framed the 5Ds R had twice as many pixels on target and a great resolution advantage.



There's no more pixels on target with a FF 50MP sensor than a 20 MP APS-C camera. As we've both already agreed, the 7D Mark II has slightly higher pixel density (4.09µm vs. 4.14µm) than the 5Ds. With the same lens the "reach" is practically identical. The 5Ds just gave you more of the scene surrounding the subject. In "reach limited" situations, that additional 61% is almost always superfluous.

As for AF, if you could only get half your frames with the 7D Mark II in focus you were doing it wrong. In his opening paragraph about a 7D Mark II teardown in which he planned to "debunk" Canon's claims about the 7D Mark II's weather resistance Roger Cicala said two things. He first said, "OK, I have to admit I really like the Canon 7D Mark II. I didn’t want to because it wasn’t what I wanted." But he then went on to admit, "But despite wanting to hate the 22-megapixel APS-C camera, after a fairly short exposure to the autofocus system, I have to admit I like it. There’s just something about getting every shot in focus every time that’s appealing to me."

In the next paragraph of the same blog entry, he also admitted, "So when I read the claim “4 times more weather sealing” my inner cynic just thought 4 times zero equals zero. But I wanted to be fair so I decided I’d open up the 7D II before I wrote a scathing article about making ridiculous weather sealing claims. Which results in me once again writing an article where I have to admit my assumptions were wrong less correct than I would have liked. (Sorry, I forgot for a moment this was the internet where no one ever says “I was wrong.”)"

My experience with the 7D Mark II is similar. I have a 95% plus hit ratio when I do what I'm supposed to do to tell the camera what I want it to focus on. It's also never had any trouble in wet weather, either. If the rain gets too intense I do break out the cheap plastic OP/TECH covers, but am still able to shoot in conditions like this:




and get images like this from 65 yards away behind the far end line:


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> *Please point out to me and everyone else here a single word or punctuation mark that was inside the quote box of my comment that was not inside your original comment?*


Sure you didn't


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 19, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> There's no more pixels on target with a FF 50MP sensor than a 20 MP APS-C camera. As we've both already agreed, the 7D Mark II has slightly higher pixel density (4.09µm vs. 4.14µm) than the 5Ds. With the same lens the "reach" is practically identical. The 5Ds just gave you more of the scene surrounding the subject. In "reach limited" situations, that additional 61% is almost always superfluous.



There are twice as many when the picture is properly framed. Only when you crop the FF sensor to the exact same says would they be equal.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> There are twice as many when the picture is properly framed. Only when you crop the FF sensor to the exact same says would they be equal.



In "reach limited" situations, which was the entire focus of this discussion, the picture is never "properly framed". The subject is always smaller than one would like. 

I'm not sure, but I think it might not go over very well if I tried to stand in the middle of the field on the 50 yard line during play at the Friday night football game. 

In 2020 we weren't even allowed to move along the sidelines from one end of the field to the other. We had to choose one area behind one of the end lines and stay there the entire game due to pandemic precautions that didn't allow us to pass through the student athletes on either sideline nor through the socially distanced fans in the stands to get to the other end.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Edited.



Please show me the edit history of my comment that is in question. I don't even know how to look it up.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 27, 2022)

dog8food said:


> Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.


Cost. Birders. Sports. Etc.


----------

