# Patent: Various RF mount zoom lenses, including an APS-C RF mount design



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 15, 2020)

> Canon continues to work on new zoom lens ideas for the RF mount according to this JPO patent, I can only see one lens below that makes sense for a consumer product, and that’s the Canon RF 24-70mm f/4 optical design.
> Now hidden in here is an optical formula for what looks to be an APS-C RF mount optical design. The Canon RF 15-70mm f/4-7.1 has an image height that differs significantly from the other 4 optical designs, suggesting it’s for a smaller sensor. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that assumption.
> *Canon RF 24-70mm f/4*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 15, 2020)

7.1 is the new 6.3. Because a 5.6 lens would be too bright on APS-C and a massive 50g heavier.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 15, 2020)

I want that 24-70! Looks like it may be many years away since it wasn't on the recent roadmap.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

A RF 24-70 f4 lens might be a big seller, but there is already a good RF 24-105 f4L.
The 15-70 f4-7.1 would be a very big seller if it was FF, but it's not so I assume it's for the super-35 format video cameras.

My preference would be a RF 15(or 17)-70 L IS (FF) lens (of whatever f#) to use as a single very wide to slight telephoto lens with high IQ and DOF (but much less background blur) which would be ideal for walk-around landscape use.


----------



## BroderLund (Oct 15, 2020)

A standard zoom with IS for the C70 (APS-C) would be amazing! However this 15-70 seems to lack IS and too dark. The current 24-70 2.8 IS is not wide enough on APS-C and 15-35 2.8 IS does not have enough tele for run and gun.


----------



## PeterT (Oct 15, 2020)

With the 15-70 they must be joking or just patenting nonsense that they never plan to produce just to confuse competitors and general public.
Or... they clearly show to all of us that for APS-C they will nevermore make a real lens, only crippled ones.

For EF-S they produced the very good 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It was one of the few "higher quality APS-C" lenses. Something like "EF-S L" lens.
With several RF L lenses Canon wanted to show that the new mount allows to overtrump the EF version (like 15-35 instead of 16-35, 100-500 instead of 100-400).

So if Canon was wanting to show commitment to RF APS-C then the hypothetical RF mount APS-C camera would have IBIS and then then IS could be dropped in favor of compactness for a not so long zoom. So then it would be logical to see a patent for an RF-S 15-85 f/4-4.5 USM or an RF-S 15-90 f/4-6.1 USM or something alike.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 15, 2020)

Interesting that all of those seem to require distortion/vignetting correction at the wide end. I guess that’s the new normal for cheaper zooms, like f/7.1 aperture


----------



## Joules (Oct 15, 2020)

Note that none of these are true FF lenses on the wide end. They all appear to be of the slight crop variety as the 24-240 mm 4.0-6.3 and 24-105 mm 4.0-7.1. Doesn't look like L lenses to me.
Edit: Wasn't quick enough


----------



## StandardLumen (Oct 15, 2020)

If that 15-70 lens is full frame, I want it, it could be an incredible travel lens. Alternatively, I will keep hoping the 24-70 F/4 comes out soon.


I'm still hoping they never make an APS-C RF Mount camera. It just makes more sense to me to have two separate lines of cameras, one designed specifically to maximize image quality in a full frame camera, and another designed specifically to capitalize on the size advantage of APS-C cameras and lenses. I don't know why a crop sensor camera needs a mount as large as RF, and from a consumer perspective it makes more sense if all you need to ask about is "does this lens fit on my camera?" (I can't speak for you guys, but when I was a beginning photographer, I definitely didn't know the difference between APS-C and full frame, nor that different lenses were designed specifically for one or the other)


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> A RF 24-70 f4 lens might be a big seller, but there is already a good RF 24-105 f4L.
> The 15-70 f4-7.1 would be a very big seller if it was FF, but it's not so I assume it's for the super-35 format video cameras.
> 
> My preference would be a RF 15(or 17)-70 L IS (FF) lens (of whatever f#) to use as a single very wide to slight telephoto lens with high IQ and DOF (but much less background blur) which would be ideal for walk-around landscape use.


+100000000000000 
These were more or less my thoughts a few times already back when it wasn't mentioned as a crop sensor lens.

It's a shame. A 17-70 FF would be the perfect excursion lens.


----------



## TMHKR (Oct 15, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> 7.1 is the new 6.3. Because a 5.6 lens would be too bright on APS-C and a massive 50g heavier.


7.1 is the sharpness sweet spot of most APS-C kit lenses


----------



## Fris (Oct 15, 2020)

I would stay far, far away from that f/7.1. The ISO speeds you need to cope with that aperture are maybe doable on FF, but on APS-C? Nope.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 15, 2020)

Fris said:


> I would stay far, far away from that f/7.1. The ISO speeds you need to cope with that aperture are maybe doable on FF, but on APS-C? Nope.



Landascape, iso 100.....

Depends the user case.


----------



## Joules (Oct 15, 2020)

Fris said:


> I would stay far, far away from that f/7.1. The ISO speeds you need to cope with that aperture are maybe doable on FF, but on APS-C? Nope.


It is certainly not ideal. But the difference between FF and APS-C is just 1.36 stops. If it looks like trash on APS-C, it wouldn't be pretty on FF either. Price and weight will be major factors in determining who this lens is a good fit for.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 15, 2020)

Image height for FF sensor should be 21.63mm, and most lenses on the list have an image height of 19.7/9-21.64

Seems to me Canon is going to repeat the trick it did with the RF 24-240mm - for some combinations of focal length & aperture, the lens isn't going to cover the whole sensor (it would lack almost 10% at the corners), and image correction will be applied to hide this. I'm a bit disappointed to see this in the RF 24-70mm f/4 patent.

I was wondering whether I should buy f/2.8 lenses when upgrading to R5, or settle on f/4. I'll wait for the reviews, but this seems to indicate f/4 is going to be too much of a compromise.


----------



## goldenhusky (Oct 15, 2020)

This could be just me, I think this is more of an issue because I am not used to f/7.1 and I am not a fan of any f/7.1 lenses so far including the 100-500. I wish Canon did not go slower than f/6.3 but the reality is different.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Image height for FF sensor should be 21.63mm, and most lenses on the list have an image height of 19.7/9-21.64
> 
> Seems to me Canon is going to repeat the trick it did with the RF 24-240mm - for some combinations of focal length & aperture, the lens isn't going to cover the whole sensor (it would lack almost 10% at the corners), and image correction will be applied to hide this. I'm a bit disappointed to see this in the RF 24-70mm f/4 patent.
> 
> I was wondering whether I should buy f/2.8 lenses when upgrading to R5, or settle on f/4. I'll wait for the reviews, but this seems to indicate f/4 is going to be too much of a compromise.


You're right!  I hadn't thought of that, and if it is the case (which seems possible) it would be a major disappointment. In fact, such shrinking of the image circle to not illuminate at all the corners means that those lenses would turn the FF sensor into a "crop sensor" and they sure don't like to advertise that anywhere! That's the reason that I haven't considered buying the RF 24-240 lens and have been hoping for a new 24(or less)-200(or less)mm f4(or higher) L version (emphasis on the "L")!


----------



## Traveler (Oct 15, 2020)

StandardLumen said:


> If that 15-70 lens is full frame, I want it, it could be an incredible travel lens. Alternatively, I will keep hoping the 24-70 F/4 comes out soon.
> 
> 
> I'm still hoping they never make an APS-C RF Mount camera. It just makes more sense to me to have two separate lines of cameras, one designed specifically to maximize image quality in a full frame camera, and another designed specifically to capitalize on the size advantage of APS-C cameras and lenses. I don't know why a crop sensor camera needs a mount as large as RF, and from a consumer perspective it makes more sense if all you need to ask about is "does this lens fit on my camera?" (I can't speak for you guys, but when I was a beginning photographer, I definitely didn't know the difference between APS-C and full frame, nor that different lenses were designed specifically for one or the other)



APSC cameras make sense of selling products for those who have limited budget. In the DSLR world, a lot of people started buying a crop camera wishing to upgrade to FF eventually. I remember a lot of people bought an APSC camera with a kit lens, then their next move was to get the 17-40 f/4 as a standard lens for the APSC and then when they bought a 6D they had a nice wide lens. So Canon could get their customers trapped easier. 
I wish they'll never make an APS-C RF mount camera either. I wish they make somehow reasonably "crippled" FF body for $400 and cheap lower quality ~f/9 zooms. So people can buy cheap cameras and then easily upgrade.


----------



## Skux (Oct 15, 2020)

No one should have to live with f/7.1. No one.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 15, 2020)

Skux said:


> No one should have to live with f/7.1. No one.


Are you serious, or joking? How can you say f7.1 is bad without any mention of what the lens focal length is? A 700mm f7.1 would have almost a 100mm aperture - Would you call that a bad lens?

I love having fast lenses, and big background blur. But not every lens I use has to be that way. In fact, my previous system (Olympus EM1 II) had a 12-100mm f4 IS pro lens that was superb as a light weight walk around & landscape lens. Because of the 2x crop factor, it would take photos equivalent to a very high quality FF 24-200mm f8 lens & FF sensor (but yes, with only 1/4 the sensor well depth as it's a smaller sensor). That lens was superb for landscape and misc. travel photography since it was so sharp with great DOF. And their 300mm f4 IS pro lens took photos equivalent to an extremely high quality FF 600mm f8 lens & FF sensor and it was absolutely spectacular! (I've posted many photos from both of those lenses previously on CanonRumors for all to see).

Not every application needs big background blur or big apertures for dark venues. Some applications, like daytime landscape use, are ideal for smaller & lighter f7.1 use. And if you ever get a RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 lens and take pictures at 500mm f7.1 I think you will be stunned at how beautiful they can be!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 15, 2020)

TMHKR said:


> 7.1 is the sharpness sweet spot of most APS-C kit lenses



That really depends on the design of the lens. There is no rule that 7.1 should be the sharpest. But even if is, the increased noise would compensate. My point is that if Fuji can make a 18-55 2.8-4 that is tiny and cheap, Canon should be able to make a small lens with 5.6 aperture.


----------



## Nigel95 (Oct 15, 2020)

Still waiting for a R6 with APS-C sensor. I want a high end hybrid body with the specs of a R6 and willing to pay like 2k for it. Don't have the budget as a hobbyist to upgrade to a R6 and all the expensive FF glass that comes with it. I would need to replace my Canon 10 18, sigma 18-35mm and 60mm macro with ff equivalent glass. The FF benefits are not worth it to me with all the costs involved. I am perfectly happy with Aps-C but I need better specs especially for video work. 4k 60p 10 bit, 1080 120p all with dpaf no crop and IBIS. 

So yes IMO please offer a R Aps-C body. The m series is not doing it for me ergonomics wise.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 15, 2020)

Given the range of back focus specified, my bet is that the 15-70 is an EF-M lens. It is just slightly longer than the EF-M 18-55 and no reason the be any bigger in diameter. It would make sense as a very compact alternative to the EF-s 15-85. If it is equally sharp, they will get my money. It would be a perfect kit lens for the upscale M body that has been rumored.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Oct 15, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Given the range of back focus specified, my bet is that the 15-70 is an EF-M lens. It is just slightly longer than the EF-M 18-55 and no reason the be any bigger in diameter. It would make sense as a very compact alternative to the EF-s 15-85. If it is equally sharp, they will get my money. It would be a perfect kit lens for the upscale M body that has been rumored.



...this is a perceptive post...and is, in my view, likely to be 'true'.

Sometimes (sometimes a lot some times!) there is a lack of perception on this forum regarding the EF-M format...including the fact that the likelihood that this lens is for the EF-M format and not for some as-yet unannounced cropped R lens was not mentioned in the OP article!

This post does not fall into that unfortunate category.

I would buy the 15-70 IS (f4 at 15mm) EF-M lens in a heartbeat...if it proves to be a superior lens at the wide end...to the 15-45 kit lens (we have three fine copies of that one in our family).

The 18-150...is a tad long for walkaround use (but I still use it for that). The 15-70 might just be 'great' (for me).

My three cents.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 16, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Are you serious, or joking? How can you say f7.1 is bad without any mention of what the lens focal length is? A 700mm f7.1 would have almost a 100mm aperture - Would you call that a bad lens?
> Not every application needs big background blur or big apertures for dark venues. Some applications, like daytime landscape use, are ideal for smaller & lighter f7.1 use. And if you ever get a RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 lens and take pictures at 500mm f7.1 I think you will be stunned at how beautiful they can be!


I have to concur with the RF 100-500mm @ 500mm. Pictures are lovely! I went back to back with a 400/2.8 II and 600/4 II (cropped in to 600mm FOV wide open for each) and there is some difference but not as much as you would think given the massive difference in cost!

.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 16, 2020)

Gee they have a woody for f/7.1 all of a sudden. Total turn-off

The 100-500 f/7.1 IQ is no better than the 100-400 f/5.6 they are no more beautiful as they have about the same background blur.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 16, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Gee they have a woody for f/7.1 all of a sudden. Total turn-off
> 
> The 100-500 f/7.1 IQ is no better than the 100-400 f/5.6 they are no more beautiful as they have about the same background blur.


"Total turn-off"? The EF lenses are 4.5 to 5 times more expensive! Big, heavy primes and they should be better for the price!
It was clear to me when walking around the zoo that the RF100-500mm was far more useful for the different animals than the 400/600mm primes. Yes, there is a difference for the bokeh but decreasing returns for price. Clearly you have much bigger budgets than I do.
The EF100-400mm is a great lens but the RF100-500mm lens is a 5x zoom and still very sharp at 500mm. It has limitations for zoom range with extenders but 500mm is good enough for me. I could have bought the EF + 1.4 TC but that would have been close to the same cost and need 3 items (R mount adapter, extender and lens) to get approximately the same focal length range. Even second hand EF100-400mm lenses are hard to come by and haven't dropped a lot in cost. EF focus speed will be slower with a TC compared to the RF native lens. The RF lens weighs less than the EF lens (even excluding the adapter) but is slightly longer and wider.
Ken's review is pretty comprehensive
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/100-500mm.htm
YMMV.


----------



## quiquae (Oct 16, 2020)

Try comparing the lens layouts in this patent application with that of RF 24-105 F4-7.1 STM. They are almost identical, with only 2 or 3 elements changed at most. This patent appears to be one of those “let’s patent every conceivable minor variation of that 24-105 design even though we’ll never sell any of them” that Canon files every time they come out with a new optical design. My guess is that none of the full frame versions will ever see the light of day, and even the APS-C variant is pretty suspect.


----------



## LRPP (Oct 16, 2020)

I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...


----------



## SteveC (Oct 16, 2020)

LRPP said:


> I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...



I don't understand why they're so mad at the prospect that it could be an EF-M mount, either.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 16, 2020)

OK so I have a technical question. Each of these lenses has a pretty wide range of back focus. Does that open up the possibility they are designed to work on both the RF mount and M mount? IF the M back focus is 18mm, and the RF back focus is 20 (or is it 22?) then you have enough flexibility in some of these offerings to mount an M to RF adapter 6mm thick and keep the M mount sensor within the 24mm back focus distance on most of these lenses. 
Admittedly I don't understand the physics of back focus and how that listed range actually works. Just a question that popped up when I read the theory that one or more of these may actually be M mount lenses.

-Brian


----------



## Dragon (Oct 16, 2020)

LRPP said:


> I just don't understant why people are angry about eventual aps-c R bodies or RF lenses ...


Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R". There are many pundits who somehow fancy lens crossover who think Canon should abandon the M and put everything on the R platform, but that completely misses the point (and the market) of the M line. M is about small and light and an R body simply can't be that small and light or it won't properly support the FF R lenses. Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5. I can assure you the extra field of view is more than worth the difference. If you are wishing for 90D kind of reach, then just be patient and wait for the R5s. It will be here sooner than you think.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 16, 2020)

Well...one thing is clear, Canon’s definitely got something for f7.1 zooms in the MILC age...


----------



## SteveC (Oct 16, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R". There are many pundits who somehow fancy lens crossover who think Canon should abandon the M and put everything on the R platform, but that completely misses the point (and the market) of the M line. M is about small and light and an R body simply can't be that small and light or it won't properly support the FF R lenses. Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5. I can assure you the extra field of view is more than worth the difference. If you are wishing for 90D kind of reach, then just be patient and wait for the R5s. It will be here sooner than you think.



You already get 17MP on an R5 in crop mode, and that's not that much less than the 7D II of 20.2 MP. Reach is almost as good, therefore.

If you really want more, you DO have the 90D or even (gasp) the M6-II. But then there's build quality issues. Nevertheless at the moment the 7D people have a choice between build quality and reach,_ either one of which_ (but not both) can be improved over their 7D.


----------



## Fletchahh (Oct 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> You already get 17MP on an R5 in crop mode, and that's not that much less than the 7D II of 20.2 MP. Reach is almost as good, therefore.
> 
> If you really want more, you DO have the 90D or even (gasp) the M6-II. But then there's build quality issues. Nevertheless at the moment the 7D people have a choice between build quality and reach,_ either one of which_ (but not both) can be improved over their 7D.



I can only speak for myself, and as a college student who loves bird photography the R5 is more money than I’m willing to spend, especially since most of my lenses are crop sensor lenses. I’d be thrilled to use either a M7/M5 Mark II or R7 (I want that animal eye AF), but would prefer an R7 because then I could get the 100-500mm sometime down the line.

Plus, there’s a hope that if an RF crop mount became a thing, that Sigma would make some high end lenses for it like the 18-35mm f/1.8 or 50-100mm f/1.8 Ef-s lenses.


----------



## Czardoom (Oct 16, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Not angry, just questioning the logic. The vast majority of folks bucking for an APS-c R body are those wishing for a 7D II replacement. The R5 already will do far more than a 7D II in terms of AF performance and the reach is about the same given the new AA filter. I haven't seen anyone bucking for an APS-c body because they want a "smaller R", or even a "cheaper R".



I would guess that virtually everyone looking for an APS-C "R" camera to replace the 7D II is looking to spend considerably less than of the cost of the R5. So, yes, people are bucking for a cheaper alternative - and an R APS-C body would be cheaper.




Dragon said:


> ....Most of the 7D II commentary involves the use of Big Whites, so if you can afford a 500mm f/4, just choke up the extra $1500 and get an R5.


Thanks for spending our money. You have no idea what people can afford or not. Most 7D II folks commenting about using "Big Whites" probably already have EF Big Whites. They just want a comparably priced new camera that will be similar to what they have now.

That's the logic. Pretty easy to understand, if you ask me.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 16, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I would guess that virtually everyone looking for an APS-C "R" camera to replace the 7D II is looking to spend considerably less than of the cost of the R5. So, yes, people are bucking for a cheaper alternative - and an R APS-C body would be cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it is easy to understand, but it may not make business sense. If Canon builds that camera and produces no APS-c lenses for it, there will be hell to pay. If they do make lenses, what is the real market for them? Not much I suspect, unless they were to drop the M line and then probably way less than the sales of the M cameras/lenses. I think the 90D may be as close as you are going to get to what you are looking for and it is a very capable camera (I have one) that doesn't need an adapter for those big whites you already have. It is very hard to please everybody, particularly in a shrinking market. BTW, I suspect an APS-c camera that has all the features of an R5 actually wouldn't be that much cheaper either.


----------



## Iain L (Oct 17, 2020)

I’ve just bought a 7D II last week. Because the 90D has too many reports of focus weirdness and the weatherproofing’s not as good, but also it was £1350. At the very top end of my budget - an R5 is literally £1000 more expensive than me buying both this 7 and a 5D iv as well for if I were desperate for the extra width full frame would give me.

Yes, a 400mm f/2.8 is the cost of a small car, but my second hand mk 1 100-400mm was £600 and works just fine, thanks. Not everyone has the budget for this new mirrorless world.

My main thing, though, is that all the glass in my regular bag (ie not raiding my son’s hand-me-down primes) is EF. As is the case with most of Canon’s best pre-RF lenses. I really couldn’t care less if an R7 never had a dedicated range of crop-frame lenses, because I’d rather be ready for whenever I could supplement it with an R6 for wide shots.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Oct 17, 2020)

I keep saying it but I want more pancake lens for my walk arounds. a trilogy of 2.8 pancakes at 24-50-85 or even 35-85-135* with a compact design would do wonders for RF mount.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Oct 17, 2020)

Skux said:


> No one should have to live with f/7.1. No one.


I won't live with 7.1. Nikon makes a very fine 24-70 f4 S line lens and it is available now. Just sayin.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 17, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Still waiting for a R6 with APS-C sensor. I want a high end hybrid body with the specs of a R6 and willing to pay like 2k for it. Don't have the budget as a hobbyist to upgrade to a R6 and all the expensive FF glass that comes with it. I would need to replace my Canon 10 18, sigma 18-35mm and 60mm macro with ff equivalent glass. The FF benefits are not worth it to me with all the costs involved. I am perfectly happy with Aps-C but I need better specs especially for video work. 4k 60p 10 bit, 1080 120p all with dpaf no crop and IBIS.
> 
> So yes IMO please offer a R Aps-C body. The m series is not doing it for me ergonomics wise.



Canon is not likely to come out with a line of APS-C glass for the R's.

I assume you just want an R with the equivalent pixel density of your APS-C canon's without upgrading to full frame so you can use your EF glass on the R's?


----------



## Dragon (Oct 17, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon is not likely to come out with a line of APS-C glass for the R's.
> 
> I assume you just want an R with the equivalent pixel density of your APS-C canon's without upgrading to full frame so you can use your EF glass on the R's?


APS-c on RF mount seems unlikely for anything but Cine, where FF often does not have enough DOF to be practical. With the C70, I suspect we will see some crop cine lenses, but they will be EXPENSIVE and not very useful to those carping about an APS-c R body. Bring on the R5s and lightweight big whites first. Get the M7 out and then if the 7D II wishful thinkers haven't gone away consider the market practicality of their request. (BTW, I still don't think an APS-c R makes business sense).


----------



## Nigel95 (Oct 17, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Canon is not likely to come out with a line of APS-C glass for the R's.
> 
> I assume you just want an R with the equivalent pixel density of your APS-C canon's without upgrading to full frame so you can use your EF glass on the R's?


Yes I have 3 lenses which are only for the APS-C sensor and am perfectly happy with the quality of this lenses. The thing I am missing is a body with the specs I like to have. Especially 4k 60p as I find the Canon 1080p a bit soft. So in fact I don't even need a R body but since there is nothing on the EF side that matches my wish list and don't think there ever will be one in that line. I prefer a R body for the future, if I ever want to upgrade my lenses there is plenty of choice on the RF side. The EF-M bodies are not my preference. I don't have much faith in the development of that line in terms of lenses. I don't need to have very compact lenses and bodies which seems the market for EF-M. My current 200d is a bit small to my liking. I prefer a body somewhat bigger than that. 

If I would upgrade now to FF Canon R6. Then I would still buy and adapt EF glass like the Canon 16 - 35 F4, 100mm 2.8 macro non IS and maybe a 24-70.


----------



## SnowMiku (Oct 18, 2020)

It's a shame that you can't put an RF lens on the M mount, it would be ideal for birders who need the crop sensor but want better quality, longer and lighter lenses. It would also be a good upgrade path if they wish to go Full Frame and get an R body in the future.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 18, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Yes I have 3 lenses which are only for the APS-C sensor and am perfectly happy with the quality of this lenses. The thing I am missing is a body with the specs I like to have. Especially 4k 60p as I find the Canon 1080p a bit soft.


First - make sure you have a good picture style choosen. Canon by default will not sharpen that much and thier video can take a fair amount of in camera sharpening or during post video production.



Nigel95 said:


> So in fact I don't even need a R body but since there is nothing on the EF side that matches my wish list and don't think there ever will be one in that line. I prefer a R body for the future, if I ever want to upgrade my lenses there is plenty of choice on the RF side. The EF-M bodies are not my preference. I don't have much faith in the development of that line in terms of lenses. I don't need to have very compact lenses and bodies which seems the market for EF-M. My current 200d is a bit small to my liking. I prefer a body somewhat bigger than that.


I hear you. Alot of poeple have found the M6II find for adapting but I never have tried it. Unlike Craig (CR) I don't think Canon will dump the EOS-M simply because it sells too well in Asia. Canon will just simply continue to run it side by side. Like they do the EF rebels. I would suggest playing around with one though. They are smaller, but you grip them differently than a DSLR. I too found anything lower than an XXD series DSLR uncomfortable, but find the M's "okay" because you tend to grip them slightly differently than a DSLR. Instead of wrapping 4 fingers around the grip, i tend to wrap 2 around the grip, and rest the camera on the top of my third finger. Over time, that became comfortable.



Nigel95 said:


> If I would upgrade now to FF Canon R6. Then I would still buy and adapt EF glass like the Canon 16 - 35 F4, 100mm 2.8 macro non IS and maybe a 24-70.


Long term it's probably the route if you don't want to toss that much money into photo gear, I'd even suggest purchasing an R instead, and looking for the lenses on ebay - as more and more people will be moving off the EF mount. And R will give you 12MP to work with your EF-S lenses as well - perhaps not optimum, but a stepping stone to more full frame lenses over time. Your EF-S lenses particularly the 18-35mm would be perfect on the R for video as well. So they have a special importance because of the R's cropped video. Thinking a little more, an R should really be what you are wanting to upgrade to, and they are well south of $2000 now if you watch - and certainly watch for black friday and cyber monday sales, as the R is most certainly going to be dumped in price this year.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 18, 2020)

SnowMiku said:


> It's a shame that you can't put an RF lens on the M mount, it would be ideal for birders who need the crop sensor but want better quality, longer and lighter lenses. It would also be a good upgrade path if they wish to go Full Frame and get an R body in the future.


the RF lenses won't be particularly lighter than their EF counterparts when you are talking longer focal lengths.


----------



## Nigel95 (Oct 18, 2020)

canonnews said:


> First - make sure you have a good picture style choosen. Canon by default will not sharpen that much and thier video can take a fair amount of in camera sharpening or during post video production.



Since I switched from the default standard picture style it's a massive difference especially in terms of contrast, crushed blacks and clipping highlights. Currently using Cinetech from Visioncolor and it's amazing how it can retain a little bit more detail in the highlights compared to the neutral picture style (prolost settings). I turn sharpness all the way down and sharpen in post. However if I compare my footage on YT with other channels in the same niche, it's a big difference (to my eyes not so much the viewers probably) even when watching on smaller / no 4k screens. Those other channels shoot with 5d Mark IV and 1DX Mark II 4k. They have sharp FF lenses sure, but I think my Sigma 18-35mm and canon 60mm macro are also pretty sharp and it feels like the 1080p of Canon becomes the bottleneck?




canonnews said:


> Long term it's probably the route if you don't want to toss that much money into photo gear, I'd even suggest purchasing an R instead, and looking for the lenses on ebay - as more and more people will be moving off the EF mount. And R will give you 12MP to work with your EF-S lenses as well - perhaps not optimum, but a stepping stone to more full frame lenses over time. Your EF-S lenses particularly the 18-35mm would be perfect on the R for video as well. So they have a special importance because of the R's cropped video. Thinking a little more, an R should really be what you are wanting to upgrade to, and they are well south of $2000 now if you watch - and certainly watch for black friday and cyber monday sales, as the R is most certainly going to be dumped in price this year.



The EOS R is a better option indeed the 1080p also has a much better bitrate than my 200d. I am just waiting for an upgrade that will set me for a while. Instead of upgrading now and want to upgrade again if something interesting comes from Canon. The lack of 4k 60p in the EOS R doesn't make it an interesting option for me. I use 1080p 60p a lot on my current 200d for gimbal shots. I use the 60p option more than just a few clips which makes me really want it to have with 4k to get the best quality. It really helps to smooth out micro jitters especially because I also record a lot of close up stuff which is hard on a gimbal. I know a slider is better which I also have. Sometimes the gimbal is just much quicker when time is limited especially for events / shops in my niche.

I feel if I can get a Canon camera with 4k 60p, 1080p 120p both with dpaf, animal af, c-log, and some IBIS or better implementation of electronic stab this would set me for a while. The questions remains if Canon will come with something like this. Maybe the rumored C50 could be a candidate (if EF-S glass on super 35 works properly). It ticks quite some boxes (not all) based on the rumor info. Then I could keep using my 200d just for stills.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 19, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Yes I have 3 lenses which are only for the APS-C sensor and am perfectly happy with the quality of this lenses. The thing I am missing is a body with the specs I like to have. Especially 4k 60p as I find the Canon 1080p a bit soft. So in fact I don't even need a R body but since there is nothing on the EF side that matches my wish list and don't think there ever will be one in that line. I prefer a R body for the future, if I ever want to upgrade my lenses there is plenty of choice on the RF side. The EF-M bodies are not my preference. I don't have much faith in the development of that line in terms of lenses. I don't need to have very compact lenses and bodies which seems the market for EF-M. My current 200d is a bit small to my liking. I prefer a body somewhat bigger than that.
> 
> If I would upgrade now to FF Canon R6. Then I would still buy and adapt EF glass like the Canon 16 - 35 F4, 100mm 2.8 macro non IS and maybe a 24-70.


Depending on how much you want to spend, either a 90D or an R5 would be perfectly happy with your EF-s lenses. The 90D has very good 4k as does the R5 in crop mode.


----------



## Nigel95 (Oct 19, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Depending on how much you want to spend, either a 90D or an R5 would be perfectly happy with your EF-s lenses. The 90D has very good 4k as does the R5 in crop mode.


90d doesn't have 4k 60p or 1080 120p dpaf unfortunately. For the price of a R5 it's better for me to get the R6 and buy second hand EF FF glass to adapt. And that is just out of my budget as a hobbyist currently. That's why a high end aps-c suits me much better to reuse current glass as I don't need the FF benefits. Now it seems I need to jump to FF just for fast specs while I don't need things like smaller dof for my shooting style. I don't expect to get all the high end specs for a price like a m50 mark II. I willing to pay up to 2k for the body only to get something like a Fuji Xt4 equivalent.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 19, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> 90d doesn't have 4k 60p or 1080 120p dpaf unfortunately. For the price of a R5 it's better for me to get the R6 and buy second hand EF FF glass to adapt. And that is just out of my budget as a hobbyist currently. That's why a high end aps-c suits me much better to reuse current glass as I don't need the FF benefits. Now it seems I need to jump to FF just for fast specs while I don't need things like smaller dof for my shooting style. I don't expect to get all the high end specs for a price like a m50 mark II. I willing to pay up to 2k for the body only to get something like a Fuji Xt4 equivalent.


So Canon has a choice between what you are asking for and an M5 II/M7. I think from a business perspective, it is impossible to offer an APS-c R without a decent set of supporting lenses. That approach would kill the M line, which is a very good seller (particularly in Asia), so then Canon would need a whole line of APS-c R bodies (a la Rebel) and those of us with an investment in M would not be happy. An M7 would also need a couple of new lenses to make it attractive, but far less effort than the first approach and remember, by the numbers, there are likely a LOT more M users than there are 7D II users that just want an updated version of what they have. All I can suggest is make your voice heard in the halls of Canon. My vote is for the M5 II/M7 (and yes, I did buy an R5 and the lens incompatibility with M is not an issue for me). Canon has offered a path to use your EF-s lenses in the way that the R bodies automatically switch to crop mode when you attach an EF-s lens, so they didn't leave your investment high and dry. As a side note, I can't find any indication that the Nikon Z50 is anywhere to be seen in sales numbers, so that may be an indicator as to how popular a large mount APS-c mirrorless would be. Note that the M mount is actually slightly larger than the Sony E mount, which explains why Sony can make such small APS-c bodies.


----------



## Nigel95 (Oct 19, 2020)

Dragon said:


> So Canon has a choice between what you are asking for and an M5 II/M7. I think from a business perspective, it is impossible to offer an APS-c R without a decent set of supporting lenses. That approach would kill the M line, which is a very good seller (particularly in Asia), so then Canon would need a whole line of APS-c R bodies (a la Rebel) and those of us with an investment in M would not be happy. An M7 would also need a couple of new lenses to make it attractive, but far less effort than the first approach and remember, by the numbers, there are likely a LOT more M users than there are 7D II users that just want an updated version of what they have. All I can suggest is make your voice heard in the halls of Canon. My vote is for the M5 II/M7 (and yes, I did buy an R5 and the lens incompatibility with M is not an issue for me). Canon has offered a path to use your EF-s lenses in the way that the R bodies automatically switch to crop mode when you attach an EF-s lens, so they didn't leave your investment high and dry. As a side note, I can't find any indication that the Nikon Z50 is anywhere to be seen in sales numbers, so that may be an indicator as to how popular a large mount APS-c mirrorless would be. Note that the M mount is actually slightly larger than the Sony E mount, which explains why Sony can make such small APS-c bodies.


Some good points you made there. I still hope there will be an APS-C body. I remember a rumor of an Aps-C R body in the second half of 2021. If there will be no APS-C R body then I think I have to go for a M7. I hope that Canon at some point will push more effort towards high quality lenses for this system. And hopefully some third party like Sigma will keep making new lenses for EF-M. I wonder if the M7 as a flagship would be a slightly bigger body as well. If its a little bit bigger than my 200d, I would be happy. Hopefully we will see IBIS in the M7 as well..

What I don't like is the stories about killing the M line or something like keep selling the current bodies with kit lenses without any effort for new lenses. That would be appealing about an Aps c R body as this line seems to get all the R&D especially with lenses. The idea that I buy a nice camera in a dead system bothers me.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 19, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> Some good points you made there. I still hope there will be an APS-C body. I remember a rumor of an Aps-C R body in the second half of 2021. If there will be no APS-C R body then I think I have to go for a M7. I hope that Canon at some point will push more effort towards high quality lenses for this system. And hopefully some third party like Sigma will keep making new lenses for EF-M. I wonder if the M7 as a flagship would be a slightly bigger body as well. If its a little bit bigger than my 200d, I would be happy. Hopefully we will see IBIS in the M7 as well..
> 
> What I don't like is the stories about killing the M line or something like keep selling the current bodies with kit lenses without any effort for new lenses. That would be appealing about an Aps c R body as this line seems to get all the R&D especially with lenses. The idea that I buy a nice camera in a dead system bothers me.


At this point, the rumors swing both ways, to some extent colored by the bias of the rumor reporter. Canon is clearly putting their primary effort into the R line right now, which makes sense given the drop in the low end of the market. I do think one of the reasons we haven't seen a replacement yet for the M5 is power related. Clearly the DigicX has a lot more processing power per watt than the Digic8, but it may still be marginal in a full featured M body. However, given that the 8k feature would not be there, I suspect that an undervolted DigicX would be within an acceptable power budget, so we may be just looking at the time needed to stabilize yields and get enough volume in hand to address the M7 market (which I think would be quite large). There may also be a new sensor in development to address the now desired higher read speeds (as you pointed out above, the 90D doesn't do 4k/60), and the M7 may also be waiting on a couple of lenses to make it more attractive to the enthusiast market. All speculation, of course, but based on pretty straightforward reasoning. If the M7 is to functionally replace the 7D II, then it also should have a battery grip available both for longer battery life and to balance bigger lenses. My gut says we will get the answer within the next 6 months. In the meantime, enjoy your 7D II .


----------

