# Canon will release an APS-C RF mount camera(s) later in 2022 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 30, 2021)

> The long rumoured APS-C RF mount camera from Canon is starting to appear more and more likely. I have been told by an solid source that Canon is “definitely” releasing an APS-C RF mount camera in 2022.
> Now, I don’t know if we’re talking about something like an “EOS R7” or a camera(s) to take the place of the EOS M line.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 30, 2021)

#R7


----------



## reisi007 (Nov 30, 2021)

With an EF-M to RF converter I am going to buy this and the new 100mm macro (if the camera is at least equivalent to the m50)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

For those who want such a Camera, I hope I’m wrong.






Will there be an APS-C EOS R-series camera?


There has been a rumor and ample forum buzz about a possible EOS R-series camera with an APS-C sensor. Is that likely? TL;DR…no. There seem to be two camps promoting the idea. One camp is looking for a ‘budget’ option in the EOS R line, an inexpensive body that’s compatible with the RF lens...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

reisi007 said:


> With an EF-M to RF converter


The EF-M flange focal distance is shorter than RF (18 vs. 20 mm). I don’t think there will be an EF-M lens to RF mount adapter.


----------



## reisi007 (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-M flange focal distance is shorter than RF (18 vs. 20 mm). I don’t think there will be an EF-M lens to RF mount adapter.



However, the diameter is smaller which let's me hope


----------



## SV (Nov 30, 2021)

Why?


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

It's always been inevitable IMO that Canon would release an APS-C in RF mount, and it beats me why some people have argued otherwise.

I think it's equally inevitable that there will within a year or two be at least two, possibly three APS-C RF models.

One will IMO be a very "affordable" entry model, complete with a new compact kit zoom, to entice newcomers to photography into adopting the RF system.

The other will probably be a 90D replacement. i.e. very well specified, but hi-end consumer rather than pro/semi-pro.

I'd like to think that there will also be a pro-grade sports/wildlife model that slots price-wise between the R6 and R5, to enable more "reach" with lighter and more compact lenses, as compared with FF.

I'd guess that the first model to be released would be the entry model, and the last to be released (if it happens at all) would be the pro model.

Where does this leave the M mount, some will ask. Well the M system is a huge seller in Asia, so I believe it will continue alongside an APS-C RF range, at least for the next 2-3 years.

(Neuro, please mote the multiple use of qualifiers i.e. "IMO", "I guess", "I'd like to think" and "I believe"...  )


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 30, 2021)

They should release it sooner then later... every other had great APS-C in its lineup (with FF mount)... expect Canon!


----------



## HikeBike (Nov 30, 2021)

Long-term...I'm guessing Canon will have an array of APS-C cameras, similar to their current selection. R7...R10..."R"ebel / R100...and smaller-bodied cameras to take the place of the EOS M line (R1000). All RF-mount. I'd expect RF-S lenses to become a reality as well. They don't need a different mount for -S glass anymore, since the full-frame R cameras will automatically enter cropped mode when an APS-C lens is attached.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> They should release it sooner than later...


No they should release it much later. We need more endless discussions about "will they or won't they" and "It should be cheaper than an R6 but have all the features of the R1."


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's always been inevitable IMO that Canon would release an APS-C in RF mount, and it beats me why some people have argued otherwise.
> 
> I think it's equally inevitable that there will within a year or two be at least two, possibly three APS-C RF models.
> 
> ...


Agree that the two first ("entry-level APS-C RF" and "hi-end consumer") seems likely. Neuro has argued well for why a 7DII replacement is unlikely, and have to concede to his arguments.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2021)

I'm also looking forward to months of lectures from self-appointed forum experts on "reach" and "equivalence."


----------



## David_D (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> One will IMO be a very "affordable" entry model, complete with a new compact kit zoom, to entice newcomers to photography into adopting the RF system.
> 
> The other will probably be a 90D replacement. i.e. very well specified, but hi-end consumer rather than pro/semi-pro.
> 
> ...


I guess it depends on whether the supply-chain issues are resolved. If parts are still hard to come by, it may be more profitable to produce fewer more expensive (i.e. the pro-grade or 90D) bodies first.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

David_D said:


> I guess it depends on whether the supply-chain issues are resolved. If parts are still hard to come by, it may be more profitable to produce fewer more expensive (i.e. the pro-grade or 90D) bodies first.


Yes it may be more profitable/easier to produce a low number of higher grade models while the supply chain issues continue, but it would I think be more profitable in the long term to release the entry model first. I think that is the area where Canon would be most effective in capturing new customers, and would be more effective than introducing another FF model below the RP. It's quite possible, even likely, that the entry model will lack an EVF, to keep purchase price as low as possible.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 30, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> #R7


or a x0D with RF mount and Dual SD slots.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 30, 2021)

David_D said:


> I guess it *depends on whether the supply-chain issues are resolved*. If parts are still hard to come by, it may be more profitable to produce fewer more expensive (i.e. the pro-grade or 90D) bodies first.


Hopefully Canon and other companies choose a route to make their own parts in their companies - and I think the pandemic has shown that this would be a good idea.

Canon needs to sell the lower end systems to stay in a good market and marketing position - at the moment I see lots of "available in 1-3 months" not only at 5k€ bodies or lenses!


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 30, 2021)

I think both, APS-EOS R bodies and EOS M systems will coexist for at least three years to find out which one will survive, maybe both of them.
M50 (ii) are excellent cameras in terms of image quality (both photo and video), AF + general speed for medium fast objects, small, light, very flexible with their flippy screens.

While I would like to use an R5 using three M50s makes lots of things easier for me e.g. EF-S 15-85 + EF-S 60 or EF-M 32 + EF 70-200 f/4 makes a nice combo avoiding any lens changes and delivering great IQ plus fitting in a small bag.
Using three R5s would be an alternative but ... price ... weight ... size ...


----------



## Kit. (Nov 30, 2021)

reisi007 said:


> However, the diameter is smaller which let's me hope


It's not "smaller" in any meaningful way. The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is 58 mm. The inner diameter of the RF mount is 54 mm. Won't fit.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 30, 2021)

Another year of posts about what it should/could be, and how Canon is taking too long so people are 'forced' to switch systems....yay!


----------



## mariosk1gr (Nov 30, 2021)

I keep hearing from ppl that a camera with a crop sensor will be lighter... how much ligher? We have seen a tremendous reduction on weight with the new milc bodies already. In the end I think with new technologies evolved and the low prices that already full frame cameras are manufactured these days, there won't be enough interest for manufacturers to make cameras with crop sensors. Faster readouts, cpus and fps and I think that it is time the industry to move to medium format! That is my point of view!


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 30, 2021)

I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?
A full frame that can crop in the view finder would be more flexible. An R7 would have to be quite robust (to match a 7D ruggedness). 
I wonder would they make it more computational like an Olympus. It could I suppose have a good frame rate.
I hope the sensor is better than the 7DII (a sensor I was never happy with).


----------



## wyotex43n (Nov 30, 2021)

I don't have the numbers and info that Canon marketing has but if I were setting in their meetings I would .
A. Do a 90D or 7Dii type product. Because I think smart phone are killing the low end. 
B. Not do an RF-s line of lenses. It confuses people.


----------



## sulla (Nov 30, 2021)

I don't think this is such a good idea, but as long as Canon don't waste time and resources producing a whole RF-S lens line, there is not much harm in putting a smaller sensor into an R-body to keep body prices low. Paired with a set of entry-level RF-glass it could keep prices low and offer a pathway to the FF world.

On the other hand, how much cheaper can an RF-APSC body be than the rumored sub-1000 USD FF body for the R-system?

Else, I think the M-line ist better suited to providing small, light and affordable body+lens camera packages.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's always been inevitable IMO that Canon would release an APS-C in RF mount, and it beats me why some people have argued otherwise.



Ok but why?


----------



## PerKr (Nov 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Ok but why?



because sustaining two mounts doesn't work out well in the segment Canon/Nikon/Sony are in. And because they need to attract people who find the R6 and R5 too expensive while also being underwhelmed by the overall performance of the R and RP. 
EF-M seems to have served its purpose as a hold-over mount to test the waters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Now, I don’t know if we’re talking about something like an “EOS R7” or a camera(s) to take the place of the EOS M line.


Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?

After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Ok but why?


Because M mount never had a full system of native lenses, and probably never will.

Canon has traditionally had a crop sensor DSLR system that natively accepted all of its full frame EF lenses (as well as its own range of EF-S lenses), and I think it will carry over that practice to the RF mount.

Canon is a huge company and plenty capable of running multiple lens systems simultaneously. RF is obviously the major mount and will I believe be used for both FF and APS-C going forward. I think M will be retained as it's very popular, especially in the Asian market.

I'm not sure whether EF lenses are still being manufactured but I'd be very surprised if any new EF designs are released - this leaves production lines and development teams with the space to expand the RF range to included APS-C bodies and lenses.


----------



## HikeBike (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?
> 
> After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.


Two arguments in favor of doing so would be upgrade path and lens selection. In today's terms, it would be nice if you could "graduate" from EOS M to Rebel to 90D, all while keeping your lenses. And if you have an EOS M and a 90D...to use the same lens on both. As far as lens selection goes...you'd have a robust selection from the bottom of the lineup all the way to the top.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?


They won't. I can't see any reason why the M series and an APS-C line in RF mount can't co-exist. There's plenty of room for both, as they are aimed at different markets, and Canon has the capability to maintain both lines.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm also looking forward to months of lectures from self-appointed forum experts on "reach" and "equivalence."



"Reach" is very important. For years when going to shoot wildlife I always "reach" for the 5Ds R rather than the 7D II. Now I will "reach" for my R5.


----------



## makei (Nov 30, 2021)

mariosk1gr said:


> I keep hearing from ppl that a camera with a crop sensor will be lighter... how much ligher? We have seen a tremendous reduction on weight with the new milc bodies already. In the end I think with new technologies evolved and the low prices that already full frame cameras are manufactured these days, there won't be enough interest for manufacturers to make cameras with crop sensors. Faster readouts, cpus and fps and I think that it is time the industry to move to medium format! That is my point of view!


EOS M series are a lot lighter. I usually take an EOS M6II with 11-22, 22, 32, (sigma 56 or 18-150) when I go out. The same camera bag can't even carry 1 FF DLSR body and 1 kit lens.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?
> 
> After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.


Two comments:

If they see a way they think they can make extra $$$$ Canon will, despite how foolish the decision might be.

I wouldn't think Ford is a foolish car company, but they brought us the Edsel and the Pinto. 
And Toyota will no longer sell Land Cruiser's in the US, I question their sanity and my next ride.
Big corporations do what they want regardless of my preferences, but then GMC released the new EV Hummer so their is still hope.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

mariosk1gr said:


> We have seen a tremendous reduction on weight with the new milc bodies already.


You're not kidding. I unboxed my R3 yesterday, and honestly it feels like a toy compared to the picking up the 1D X sitting next to it.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 30, 2021)

reisi007 said:


> With an EF-M to RF converter I am going to buy this and the new 100mm macro (if the camera is at least equivalent to the m50)


Don't think it is possible.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 30, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> #R7


Makes sense for Canon to do this, painful but necessary but does mean end to the EOS M line


----------



## AJ (Nov 30, 2021)

I would pre-order a 90R.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> Makes sense for Canon to do this, painful but necessary but does mean end to the EOS M line



No, it does not.

You're arguing the mirror image (but still wrong) of the people who want an APS-C R and hate the M series because they think somehow they can't get their APS-C R while it exists.

There is NO reason Canon cannot do both, and they have every reason to want to keep the EF-M line going.


----------



## MartinVLC (Nov 30, 2021)

I could see canon bringing a R10 APS-C for around 1200.- replacing the 90D. The R7 fans will (have to) be satisfied with it because it will have great AF and a 30MP APS-C Sensor and between 10-20 fps. But it will attract more consumers as well because it´s not gonna have a R7 price tag.

Still it will be placed well above the M50 and M6, so it´s no competition to those. M-Line for compact hobby bodies, R for enthusiasts and pros.

The rumored18-45mm lense could be a FF-lense that serves as affordable wide angle zoom for FF (still missing in the RF line up) as well as a Kit lense for the R10.

That way canon would not have to produce RF-S lenses (for now). 

In quite a few years from now, canon could still get rid of the M line and go all in on RF.


----------



## amfoto1 (Nov 30, 2021)

I'm betting we'll see three new R-series in 2022. Two will be APS-C: an R7 (mirrorless 7D. Mark II) and am R50 (beginning of the transition from M-series to R-series). The third will be a high end, pro full frame R1 with a huge sensor (75-85MP) and integral grip (like the R3).
The R7 will be a sports action camera, probably around 24MP with state-of-the-art AF, very fast frame rate, and with build, sealing and durability similar to 7DII. It will have a stacked or global sensor to avoid rolling shutter problems. And it should cost $2000 or a little less. Why 24MP? There are some things, like very fast, high volume sports photography where you really don't want the largest possible files or the camera shake issues that come with ultra high resolutions (90D and M6II have the most pixels per square mm of any interchangeable lens camera currently on the market). A more modest resolution also can be helpful for low light/high ISO work. Also, 7DII is durability rated for 200,000 shutter actuations, while 90D is rated for 120,000 clicks (up from 100K in 80D). This is important when a camera has ultra high frame rates. Another possible solutuon, Canon may choose to eliminate the mechanical shutter entirely (as Nikon has done in the Z9) if their stacked sensor in the R3 works as well as expected.
The R50 will be more video and vlogger oriented, which I don't know enough about to predict resolution. Maybe 32.5MP like M6II? But it needs to be compact (no EVF or accessory EVF?) and reasonably affordable at around $1000.
Those two APS-C models would meet the majority of market demand and they can add more models later.
P.S. Don't expect there to be an EF-M to RF adapter. The EF--M mount uses a a shorter lens register than the RF mount... 18mm vs 20mm... which makes an adapter impossible or at least impractical. There's simply no room for rhe adapter, like there is for EF (46mm) to RF (20mm). Of course, it's possible to put optics in an adapter to correct for the problem with the EF-M lens register (distance from the mounting flange to the sensor, at which all lenses for the mount are designed to back focus). However, adapters with quality optics are very expensive and ones that are more affordable typically ruin image quality. So someone with EF-M mount lenses should plan on trading them in when they buy an R-series camera or just keep an M-series camera to use the EF-M lenses upon.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> They won't. I can't see any reason why the M series and an APS-C line in RF mount can't co-exist. There's plenty of room for both, as they are aimed at different markets, and Canon has the capability to maintain both lines.


I agree that the best strategy is to keep the M series. My guess is that the APS-C R cameras will replace the Rebel DSLRs and perhaps include one higher end model. The M series has always been aimed at those wanting the most portable and light ILC system. The fact that some higher-end users think it should be a full fledged system with all the same lenses as the EF or now the RF mount is pretty much irrelevant. Canon has always been smart enough to know that the number of buyers who want duplicate systems must be very low, so they have kept the lenses in the M system to a minimum ( and kept them small and light) - at least that is my opinion, since I have no market research info.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Because M mount never had a full system of native lenses, and probably never will.


It's as full as it needs to be, really. There's a standard zoom (one current, one discontinued), an ultrawide zoom, a superzoom, a telezoom, a couple of fast(ish) primes, and a macro lens. For everything else, there's an adapter to access the full EF system.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 30, 2021)

There are three levels of APSC models now. Why not with an R mount? Canon is not going to cede that market to Fuji, Nikon or Sony. It needs an "entry level" offering with kit price hovering around $500. Until the supply chain settles down, don't expect to see such models or appropriate lenses until late 2022 or even 2023.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 30, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?
> A full frame that can crop in the view finder would be more flexible. An R7 would have to be quite robust (to match a 7D ruggedness).
> I wonder would they make it more computational like an Olympus. It could I suppose have a good frame rate.
> I hope the sensor is better than the 7DII (a sensor I was never happy with).


The point is that you get more reach. Assuming that any new Crop R body would have at least 24 MP, there is nothing in Canon FF lineup that has the 61 MP that would equal such a crop body's pixel density.

Personally, I have been doing more Bird photography, including some BIF, so I pulled the trigger and got the R6 for its advanced AF. It was really more than I wanted to spend - and the R5 is well beyond my budget. Having just bought the new RF 100-400, I have already been disappointed in a number of situations where I needed more reach (or more MPs), as the R6 is only around 7.8 MPs in crop mode. So, I eagerly await a crop R camera. I hope the rumor is true.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

dickgrafixstop said:


> There are three levels of APSC models now. Why not with an R mount? Canon is not going to cede that market to Fuji, Nikon or Sony. It needs an "entry level" offering with kit price hovering around $500.


What market have they ceded?









EOS M200 EF-M 15-45mm IS STM Kit


Fast and Accurate Dual Pixel CMOS AF with Eye Detection AF. High-Image Quality with 24.1 Megapixel CMOS (APS-C) Sensor. 4K Video and 4K Time-lapse Movie along with Vertical video*. 3.0-inch Touch Panel LCD Screen with Tilt Option for 180° for Selfies. Built-in Bluetooth®** and Wi-Fi®...




www.usa.canon.com





Slots #2-7 on the domestic best-selling ILC list belong to Canon. Note the other clear message in that list – the DSLR is far from dead, unless people believe that dead products are best-sellers.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Nov 30, 2021)

There is a huge market for an R7… 

I know so many people who are holding out for one.

Thats why Canon will release an apa-c RF mount canera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> There is a huge market for an R7…
> 
> I know so many people who are holding out for one.
> 
> Thats why Canon will release an apa-c RF mount canera.


Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make? 

I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
> 
> I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.


I believe the 7D Mk III wasn't made because there was a lack of customers and interested people waiting for it. imho the end of the 7D II life-cycle just coincided with the release of the RF mount. The 7D II came out in 2014 and considering a normal 4-year cycle it should've ended in 2018 with a new 7d III. The release of the RF mount, as we now know, was actually the death of of EF mount and their cameras.

So, my point is: just because the 7D III was never released, it doesn't necessarily state that there wasn't a market for it or that there isn't a market for an R7.

In retrospective: imho Canon should have released a 7d III in 2017 or early 2018. It would have had enough time to sell and given Canon the appropriate time to develop a scheme for R-ASPC strategy while having satisfied customers.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's as full as it needs to be, really. There's a standard zoom (one current, one discontinued), an ultrawide zoom, a superzoom, a telezoom, a couple of fast(ish) primes, and a macro lens. For everything else, there's an adapter to access the full EF system.


But what about M mount big whites? 5X macro? 4 versions of a 70-200 equivalent? 2.8 standard zoom? I'm kidding of course. People who say the M mount never had a full lineup just don't seem to understand that it has a full lineup for what it is intended to do. A lot of these vloggers are using them with a 16mm or 22mm prime, and that's it. There is enough to put together a walk about kit for street/environmental photos. And an adapter to get any EF glass you may find you "need". M series is not an alternative to the DSLR of yore (going way back to 2020, lol). Its a superb small format system on its own, a fully featured travel system, and a great compliment to a DSLR you may happen to have. 



neuroanatomist said:


> What market have they ceded?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This came up in another discussion recently. The DSLR isn't dead because the $500-700 'real camera' market for entry level cameras isn't dead yet. A lot of folks, though declining in numbers, still want a 'real' camera which makes the M series too much of a P&S looking camera for them. But don't want to spend beyond what a 90D kit or Rebel kit may cost. Once there is an RF model in that range, that is what they'll be buying. Until then, the entry level DSLR lives.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 30, 2021)

If the Canons CEOs read this site and maybe a few others, they KNOW that people want an R-ASPC camera. They could save the money for an expansive marketing research team, spent this cash for developing one or two lenses for each APS-C line (M and RF) and make everybody happy


----------



## AlP (Nov 30, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> I don't have the numbers and info that Canon marketing has but if I were setting in their meetings I would .
> A. Do a 90D or 7Dii type product. Because I think smart phone are killing the low end.
> B. Not do an RF-s line of lenses. It confuses people.


While I am not sure about how likely a 7D-type of RF aps-c camera would be, I also don't think that there will be "RF-S" lenses.
There are already RF lenses which require some stretching in post-processing on a full-frame sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon will release further lenses with focal lengths which are kind of typical for aps-c sensors, but which also work on full frame with significant post-processing.
Most of the lenses released so far which fit into that category are rather light and lower-cost, and not that different in terms of size and weight from EF-S lenses. A dedicated set of RF-S lenses would likely have no significant advantage in terms of weight or cost, and wouldn't work on full frame.

Like that Canon could address the low-end full-frame market, and the same lenses would be a still lightweight and cost-effective solution for typical DXX-DXXX customers.
As for the 7D crowd, how many are really using that type of camera with cheaper EF-S lenses? I would guess it's a minority, and that's also why I definitely do not expect to see a 7D-type camera with M-mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> This came up in another discussion recently. The DSLR isn't dead because the $500-700 'real camera' market for entry level cameras isn't dead yet. A lot of folks, though declining in numbers, still want a 'real' camera which makes the M series too much of a P&S looking camera for them. But don't want to spend beyond what a 90D kit or Rebel kit may cost. Once there is an RF model in that range, that is what they'll be buying. Until then, the entry level DSLR lives.


Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's as full as it needs to be, really. There's a standard zoom (one current, one discontinued), an ultrawide zoom, a superzoom, a telezoom, a couple of fast(ish) primes, and a macro lens. For everything else, there's an adapter to access the full EF system.


Quite agree, there's little or no need to expand the range of lenses for M mount, there are more than sufficient for the market the cameras are aimed at.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If the Canons CEOs read this site and maybe a few others, they KNOW that people want an R-ASPC camera. They could save the money for an expansive marketing research team, spent this cash for developing one or two lenses for each APS-C line (M and RF) and make everybody happy


The handful of people posting on Internet forums are essentially irrelevant as far as the broader market goes.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2021)

AlP said:


> There are already RF lenses which require some stretching in post-processing on a full-frame sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon will release further lenses with focal lengths which are kind of typical for aps-c sensors, but which also work on full frame with significant post-processing.


Now _that _is an interesting take on those "needs a lot of digital correction" lenses.

Yes, they'd probably be quite good in either crop mode (on an R5 say) or on a sensor that _only_ has crop mode. Much less correction is needed towards the center of the image, so crop mode basically amounts to getting rid of most of the part of the image that is badly distorted (before correction).;


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?


The incentive is probably to get people into the RF system, and buy RF lenses. Much as I like DSLRs, the future for them is bleak. Canon may believe that current Canon DSLR users are likely to consider switching to Sony or Nikon if/when they go mirrorless, so it makes sense to wean them off DSLRs and steer them towards RF.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Quite agree, there's little or no need to expand the range of lenses for M mount, there are more than sufficient for the market the cameras are aimed at.



I'm not sure if there's much more that they _could_ do and keep that constant outside diameter.

I normally use the Tamron 18-200 on my M6-II--it's a bit fatter but not ridiculously so. And I can certainly put a EF 100-400 L II on with an adapter. Strangely I rarely (but not quite never) use a standard EF-M lens--I own four of them.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The point is that you get more reach. Assuming that any new Crop R body would have at least 24 MP, there is nothing in Canon FF lineup that has the 61 MP that would equal such a crop body's pixel density.
> 
> Personally, I have been doing more Bird photography, including some BIF, so I pulled the trigger and got the R6 for its advanced AF. It was really more than I wanted to spend - and the R5 is well beyond my budget. Having just bought the new RF 100-400, I have already been disappointed in a number of situations where I needed more reach (or more MPs), as the R6 is only around 7.8 MPs in crop mode. So, I eagerly await a crop R camera. I hope the rumor is true.


Just put the RF 1.4x on the R6. I've been doing it for bird photography, and have been posting some of mine and my wife's bird photos on the Bird Portrait thread taken with it and the RF 100-400mm + RF 1.4x on the R6, and I think the results are as good as from my RF 100-500mm on the R5. OK, you might say, you are at f/11 with the 1.4x on an f/8. But, don't worry. Each pixel of the R6 is 1.5x1.5 larger than that of the R5 so that you can double the iso and have the same signal/noise for the pixel, and your image has been enlarged by 1.4x. Basically, the 20 Mpx R6 with a 1.4xTC has a very similar field of view and similar reach and S/N as the R5 in crop mode: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918531


----------



## kaihp (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?


Olicom was in that position in 1999. Increasing market share and good margins. But in a market (Token Ring networking) that folded upon them. They were basically bankrupt nine months later (sold the R&D department for one dollar).

I'm not saying that the DSLR APS-C market is falling apart, but Canon needs to keep a very fixed eye on where the emergency door is, in case that a collapse should appear to happen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> The incentive is probably to get people into the RF system, and buy RF lenses.


That sounds plausible and is frequently given as a rationale, but with the popularity of double lens kits and the overall 1.4:1 lens:camera ratio, the reality is that most people never buy another lens beyond what came with the camera (and the popularity of the nifty 50 suggests that if they do buy one, it’s a really cheap one).

I think Canon is well aware that the “upgrade path“ is a forum user phenomenon that’s not reflected in real world purchases. Remember the forum rage and disbelief when Canon brought out the RF mount that was incompatible with EF-M? Canon has actual data on the mountain, we are just rummaging around in our mole hill here.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> What market have they ceded?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My guess is that Canon will begin to make mirrorless rebels in the lowest price brackets that continue to be best sellers, if not in the next generation, then in the one after that. While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless. Not only don't care, but won't know the difference, because quite frankly, there is little difference. Potential buyers will pick up the camera, look through the viewfinder - or on the back screen - and will take the shot. They will see that you can change lenses and buy additional ones if you want. That the kit lens that comes with the camera is an RF rather than an EF lens will probably not be noticed. Canon, since they are smart, will call them "Rebels," will keep the form factor essentially the same, the price essentially the same, sell them on Amazon and other non-specialized retailers and most buyers will never know there is anything different from the "Rebel" their parents, or siblings, or friends bought recently or few years back. This way, whatever percentage of buyers that end up upgrading or expanding their camera and lens collection (probably a small percentage, but there will be some, as most of us here probably took that path), will be buying RF lenses, which will allow Canon to ultimately cut the cost of trying to maintain both EF and RF lens systems.
That is my guess.


----------



## slclick (Nov 30, 2021)

I think it would be natural to have 3 bodies. Rebel, XXD and R# hierarchy. Perhaps a common body style unique to the crop RF line.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 30, 2021)

Seems like kind of a hard call. The Nikon Z APS-c models are as expensive as a Z5 and only three lenses after two years. Nothing to compete with the M50 there. I can see Canon wanting to assuage the whining from the 7DII crowd, but that would have to be done carefully so as to not signal departure from the very popular M line. In my view, it would make more sense to release an R5s first and see if the volume level goes down from the birders, but if they do an APS-c body, it seems like at least the first thing out the gate needs to be 7D II replacement with lots of pixels and very well featured. 40 or 45 MP would put it in the 100MP FF reach range and that should end the "more pixels on the bird" chatter as there are very few lenses (even RF lenses) that can take full advantage of that kind of pixel density. The problem would be that such a camera would likely cost more than an R6. A Rebel-like entry level APS-c would only make sense if they purposely kill the M line and that would mean developing a fair number of inexpensive lenses, not to mention millions of unhappy M customers. Personally, I still think the 100ish MP FF body makes more sense.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> My guess is that Canon will begin to make mirrorless rebels in the lowest price brackets that continue to be best sellers, if not in the next generation, then in the one after that. While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless. Not only don't care, but won't know the difference, because quite frankly, there is little difference. Potential buyers will pick up the camera, look through the viewfinder - or on the back screen - and will take the shot. They will see that you can change lenses and buy additional ones if you want. That the kit lens that comes with the camera is an RF rather than an EF lens will probably not be noticed. Canon, since they are smart, will call them "Rebels," will keep the form factor essentially the same, the price essentially the same, sell them on Amazon and other non-specialized retailers and most buyers will never know there is anything different from the "Rebel" their parents, or siblings, or friends bought recently or few years back. This way, whatever percentage of buyers that end up upgrading or expanding their camera and lens collection, will be buying RF lenses, which will allow Canon to ultimately cut the cost of trying to maintain both EF and RF lens systems.
> That is my guess.



If they do decide to keep the Rebel name, I imagine they'll start over on the numbers and put a new prefix or suffix on it. The low-end Rebels currently are T3, T4, etc.; I could see those becoming Rebel R1, Rebel R2, etc. for RF mount models. -i and -s suffixes can be added as they do currently.

Of course folks in Europe will likely just see 3 or 4 digit model numbers without the "Rebel" marque, as today.


----------



## dwarven (Nov 30, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> "Reach" is very important. For years when going to shoot wildlife I always "reach" for the 5Ds R rather than the 7D II. Now I will "reach" for my R5.



The obvious problem with that is the R5 is out of reach for many people.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Just put the RF 1.4x on the R6. I've been doing it for bird photography, and have been posting some of mine and my wife's bird photos on the Bird Portrait thread taken with it and the RF 100-400mm + RF 1.4x on the R6, and I think the results are as good as from my RF 100-500mm on the R5. OK, you might say, you are at f/11 with the 1.4x on an f/8. But, don't worry. Each pixel of the R6 is 1.5x1.5 larger than that of the R5 so that you can double the iso and have the same signal/noise for the pixel, and your image has been enlarged by 1.4x. Basically, the 20 Mpx R6 with a 1.4xTC has a very similar field of view and similar reach and S/N as the R5 in crop mode: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918531


Excellent suggestion...In fact, I just bought the RF 1.4, but haven't had a chance to test it out. Of course, that added another $500 US. So the total cost of the R6, 1.4x, and the RF 100-400 was about $3,650. My hope is that a crop camera might come in at a little less than the R6, maybe $2,000, in which case I am getting slightly more reach (640 vs. 560), more light (f/8 vs. f/11), presumably slightly faster AF without the telconverter, and a lower cost - maybe as much as $1,000 less, almost certainly $500 less as I won't need the 1.4x. But for now, yes, I hope the 1.4x works out well.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Excellent suggestion...In fact, I just bought the RF 1.4, but haven't had a chance to test it out. Of course, that added another $500 US. So the total cost of the R6, 1.4x, and the RF 100-400 was about $3,650. My hope is that a crop camera might come in at a little less than the R6, maybe $2,000, in which case I am getting slightly more reach (640 vs. 560), more light (f/8 vs. f/11), presumably slightly faster AF without the telconverter, and a lower cost - maybe as much as $1,000 less, almost certainly $500 less as I won't need the 1.4x. But for now, yes, I hope the 1.4x works out well.


I promise you, you will be delighted with the R6+1.4xTC+100-400 and that it's basically equivalent (if I am allowed to used the word) at f/11 to the bare 100-400mm at f/8 on 15 Mpx APS-C. A 20-24 Mpx R APS-C would be very nice. The R6 has a very good sensor and delivers very crisp images. An R5 with the 100-500mm would have cost you double.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> ...While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless...


I do think there may be another factor at play. There may be a certain segment of the market that looks at an R and says, "that's too big. I don't want to carry that around." I say that because for that customer base, the competition is smart phones, not other cameras. 

How small can Canon make an R series body?, and perhaps even more important, how small can they make an RF lens and still have it fit on a full frame body. The recent 16mm indicates pretty small, but can they or will they, make a whole series of tiny lenses in RF mount? 

Size may be the most important thing that the M series has going for it and I'm not sure they can get down to that size easily in the R series.


----------



## wyotex43n (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Just put the RF 1.4x on the R6. I've been doing it for bird photography, and have been posting some of mine and my wife's bird photos on the Bird Portrait thread taken with it and the RF 100-400mm + RF 1.4x on the R6, and I think the results are as good as from my RF 100-500mm on the R5. OK, you might say, you are at f/11 with the 1.4x on an f/8. But, don't worry. Each pixel of the R6 is 1.5x1.5 larger than that of the R5 so that you can double the iso and have the same signal/noise for the pixel, and your image has been enlarged by 1.4x. Basically, the 20 Mpx R6 with a 1.4xTC has a very similar field of view and similar reach and S/N as the R5 in crop mode: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918531


There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. So here is a hypothetical
Your R6/100-400/1.4 extender is currently $3647. You get 20MP at f11 at 560mm.
Your R5/100-500 is currently $6698. using your crop mode idea you get 17mp at f7.1 at 500mm. 
What if there was an R7 at 32mp for the same price as an R6?
R7/100-500 for $5298. 32mp at f7.1 at 500mm. Whats the noise and iso performance like? I don't know. Which one yields the best results? I don't know. 
What Canon will do I think is figure out which one appeals to the most people and makes them them the most money.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Seems like kind of a hard call. The Nikon Z APS-c models are as expensive as a Z5 and only three lenses after two years. Nothing to compete with the M50 there. I can see Canon wanting to assuage the whining from the 7DII crowd, but that would have to be done carefully so as to not signal departure from the very popular M line. In my view, it would make more sense to release an R5s first and see if the volume level goes down from the birders, but if they do an APS-c body, it seems like at least the first thing out the gate needs to be 7D II replacement with lots of pixels and very well featured. 40 or 45 MP would put it in the 100MP FF reach range and that should end the "more pixels on the bird" chatter as there are very few lenses (even RF lenses) that can take full advantage of that kind of pixel density. The problem would be that such a camera would likely cost more than an R6. A Rebel-like entry level APS-c would only make sense if they purposely kill the M line and that would mean developing a fair number of inexpensive lenses, not to mention millions of unhappy M customers. Personally, I still think the 100ish MP FF body makes more sense.


I think the situation has changed one helluva lot because of the introduction of excellent narrow aperture lenses. As you say, a 40-45 Mpx sensor requires the quality lenses to go with it. Basically, they need to be f/4 or wider to take advantage of those small pixels. The 45 Mpx of the R5 become rather wasted for apertures narrower than f/7.1.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. So here is a hypothetical
> Your R6/100-400/1.4 extender is currently $3647. You get 20MP at f11 at 560mm.
> Your R5/100-500 is currently $6698. using your crop mode idea you get 17mp at f7.1 at 500mm.
> What if there was an R7 at 32mp for the same price as an R6?
> ...


The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?


One could potentially argue that what Canon really leads is the market segment looking for cameras in that price range. Here in the US, you walk in to Costco and see pallets of the rebel kits. Canon has the name recognition and the price point, and therefore gets the sales. Whether a DLSR is in that box or an RF mirrorless, I think, matters much less to the consumer. They may not even know the difference. They just want a 'real' camera. Not a point and shoot and not a phone. And they want it at that price point. 

So if that is really what is happening, then Canon would be incentivized to consolidate production and engineering to one mount system. 

I'm not saying its impossible Canon remains committed to the DSLR system. Predictions, as they say, are hard to make correctly - especially when they are about the future. But it would seem that if the pro/prosumer series has left the DSLR behind already, it will do the same to the entry level market at some point as well. If we see a new DSLR rebel it may mean Canon can't quite get the performance they want at that price point in mirrorless quite yet (cost of EVF? battery life?). But at some point they will. 



-Brian


----------



## crashpc (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.


Diffraction limiting is not a hard stop, and there are other aspects which will not be limited. As long as you see aliasing/moire, the lens outresolves the sensor. Also, sensor resolution itself is cheap. If there was no other issue, you want all the pixels there is, and then you pay for your lens class to take care about resolution limits. 

Anyways, Canon cripple hammer will hit, and it will hit hard. 

I'm before camera purchase right now. Need at least 240FPS at 720p or better. I guess no Canon camera can do that.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> ...
> 
> Size may be the most important thing that the M series has going for it and I'm not sure they can get down to that size easily in the R series.


I don't think they will want to. The M50 will be the low cost crop camera for those that want small. The potential low-cost crop R camera will be for those that want a "DSLR Rebel" size camera. Considering both of these body types/sizes sell well now, why not continue to sell both styles?


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That sounds plausible and is frequently given as a rationale, but with the popularity of double lens kits and the overall 1.4:1 lens:camera ratio, the reality is that most people never buy another lens beyond what came with the camera (and the popularity of the nifty 50 suggests that if they do buy one, it’s a really cheap one).
> 
> I think Canon is well aware that the “upgrade path“ is a forum user phenomenon that’s not reflected in real world purchases.


Yes, there are certainly many people who never get beyond owning a kit lens or a double lens kit, but I would think that the market for additional lenses is still huge and very profitable. And even if people only buy a singe kit lens, if that kit lens is a new RF model, that's another lucrative sale that Canon wouldn't have made if users didn't move from DSLRs to RF. The most popular RF lens is probably the 24-105mm F4L - that's a thousand dollar lens, and heaven knows how many of them Canon has sold.

In order to remain profitable, companies need to regularly launch new products and new product ranges or they quickly lose out to other more progressive brands. While Canon may *appear* to have initially resisted switching from DSLRs to MILCs, in the long term the move will be hugely beneficial to them.


----------



## dlee13 (Nov 30, 2021)

I doubt possible but if it is a RF Mount EF-M style camera, would be cool if you could still somehow use EF-M lenses with it.


----------



## vjlex (Nov 30, 2021)

This is the CR3 I've been waiting for. I have been on the fence about how to upgrade my very dated, but still very good M3. There was no M5 Mark II, and the two M50s didn't quite check all my boxes. Add to that I finally decided to move to RF lenses, I really want a second body that can actually mount them. I look forward to more word on this soon.


----------



## John Wilde (Nov 30, 2021)

An APS-C R has been rumored since 2018. Still waiting.  
​


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 30, 2021)

Hoping we get an RP successor with longer life battery wayyyyyyyyy before that.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 30, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> One could potentially argue that what Canon really leads is the market segment looking for cameras in that price range...Whether a DLSR is in that box or an RF mirrorless, I think, matters much less to the consumer. They may not even know the difference. They just want a 'real' camera...
> 
> So if that is really what is happening, then Canon would be incentivized to consolidate production and engineering to one mount system.
> 
> I'm not saying its impossible Canon remains committed to the DSLR system...But it would seem that if the pro/prosumer series has left the DSLR behind already, it will do the same to the entry level market at some point as well. If we see a new DSLR rebel it may mean Canon can't quite get the performance they want at that price point in mirrorless quite yet (cost of EVF? battery life?). But at some point they will.


Valid points, but a big unknown is the future of the M system, which is already very close to the Rebel price point.

Your hypothetical Costco buyer may be interested in both price *and* small size and the M is likely to maintain those advantages over the R system. I suspect that only a tiny minority of those buyers will ever go beyond a bundled two lens kit and if at some point they decide to "upgrade" they won't have enough invested in the M system to hesitate chucking it all for an RP and 24-105 STM or whatever lower cost body and lens combination Canon may offer.

On this forum, we often presume that there are significant cost savings and incentives to consolidate lines, but I wonder if the savings is really much of a factor. Canon continues to churn out two-lens Rebel kits for about $550. It is hard to see a similar price point for the R series in the near future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, there are certainly many people who never get beyond owning a kit lens or a double lens kit, but I would think that the market for additional lenses is still huge and very profitable. And even if people only buy a singe kit lens, if that kit lens is a new RF model, that's another lucrative sale that Canon wouldn't have made if users didn't move from DSLRs to RF. The most popular RF lens is probably the 24-105mm F4L - that's a thousand dollar lens, and heaven knows how many of them Canon has sold.


The RF 24-105/4L, and the EF 24-105/4L (I and II) before it, are kits lenses for FF bodies so of course they're popular. That actually supports my point – when you buy your first FF body, you need a FF kit lens to go with it. I suspect Canon's data show that the people who are 'upgraders' and buy >1-2 lenses also upgrade their body (likely more than once). That's actually an argument for having separate, incompatible mounts that 'force' those wanting to upgrade to buy new lenses to go with their new body and vice-versa.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

crashpc said:


> Diffraction limiting is not a hard stop, and there are other aspects which will not be limited. As long as you see aliasing/moire, the lens outresolves the sensor. Also, sensor resolution itself is cheap. If there was no other issue, you want all the pixels there is, and then you pay for your lens class to take care about resolution limits.
> 
> Anyways, Canon cripple hammer will hit, and it will hit hard.
> 
> I'm before camera purchase right now. Need at least 240FPS at 720p or better. I guess no Canon camera can do that.


I posted a thread where I calculated the theoretical values of the combined MTF values of sensors with lenses at different f-numbers. There is of course not a hard stop, and I wasn't implying it or stating it. Lenses don't outresolve sensors and vice versa: the overall MTF of the system is a function of the MTFs of all the components. As you go through the DLA of the sensor, you are in the realm of diminishing returns for increased resolution on increasing the pixel density.





Effects of diffraction and R5/R6 sensor on resolution of f/5.6, f/7.1 and f/11 lenses and TCs


Another of my geek articles, which does have some implications for actual use. What I do here is to calculate the contributions of diffraction and sensor Mpx size (R5 vs R6) to the resolving power of the 400mm f/5.6 and 500mm f/7.1 zooms and the 600mm and 800mm f/11 primes and how resolution is...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I do think there may be another factor at play. There may be a certain segment of the market that looks at an R and says, "that's too big. I don't want to carry that around." I say that because for that customer base, the competition is smart phones, not other cameras.
> 
> How small can Canon make an R series body?, and perhaps even more important, how small can they make an RF lens and still have it fit on a full frame body. The recent 16mm indicates pretty small, but can they or will they, make a whole series of tiny lenses in RF mount?
> 
> Size may be the most important thing that the M series has going for it and I'm not sure they can get down to that size easily in the R series.


The bodies probably won't be much smaller, but that's not really the point. The body and kit lens combo will be smaller and lighter, because lenses for APS-C will have shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view. And if the user has 2 or 3 lenses, the difference in overall weight and portability is quite significant. It's an important factor for many users, hence the popularity of M43 and M series cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> The body and kit lens combo will be smaller and lighter, because lenses for APS-C will have shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view. And if the user has 2 or 3 lenses, the difference in overall weight and portability is quite significant. It's an important factor for many users, hence the popularity of M43 and M series cameras.


Does that mean you believe there that if there is an APS-C EOS R then there will be RF-s lenses (or whatever functional equivalent), to achieve that smaller/lighter form factor?


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does that mean you believe there that if there is an APS-C EOS R then there will be RF-s lenses (or whatever functional equivalent), to achieve that smaller/lighter form factor?


Yes, I do think there will be RF lenses specifically designed for APS-C, just as there were APS-C lenses specifically designed for DSLRs. Not many of course, initially just a kit lens, but I would expect at least 2 or 3 others to follow. It's not as if Canon don't have the manufacturing capacity.

On Canon's crop DSLRs, lenses designed especially for them were very popular e.g. the 18-135mm. That lens was pretty awful, but there were some truly excellent APS-C lenses, such as the acclaimed EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. It would be disappointing (and to me, surprising) if there were no RF lenses produced specifically for APS-C.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 30, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Valid points, but a big unknown is the future of the M system, which is already very close to the Rebel price point.
> 
> Your hypothetical Costco buyer may be interested in both price *and* small size and the M is likely to maintain those advantages over the R system. I suspect that only a tiny minority of those buyers will ever go beyond a bundled two lens kit and if at some point they decide to "upgrade" they won't have enough invested in the M system to hesitate chucking it all for an RP and 24-105 STM or whatever lower cost body and lens combination Canon may offer.
> 
> On this forum, we often presume that there are significant cost savings and incentives to consolidate lines, but I wonder if the savings is really much of a factor. Canon continues to churn out two-lens Rebel kits for about $550. It is hard to see a similar price point for the R series in the near future.


Yeah for sure, we're all just speculating. I think the M series suffers, in this hypothetical consumer's mind, from looking too much like a point and shoot. Its not 'real camera' enough. Certainly speculation again, but I know personally a few interested hobbyists who have said they don't want a fancy point and shoot, and don't really fully understand that the M series is more that just a fancy point and shoot. Size matters, apparently, in this case.  For the record, I love my M50 and am a big proponent of the brand. If Canon commits to it replacing the Rebel line, that means good things for the future of the line. It just seems like they intend to keep it fully separate though, if they keep it around at all. 

As to cost savings for consolidating, its less about volumes and production efficacy than it is about organizational drain. Go the RF and you can have one product line manager, one platform engineer, one product pipeline manager, etc. Stick with EF and you'll duplicate at least some of that, and have to maintain tech experts and separate marketing, sales and support structure for both. On the outside of the organization looking in, it doesn't seem like it amounts to much. But its the kind of consolidation managers really pat themselves on the back for. 

Brian



entoman said:


> Yes, I do think there will be RF lenses specifically designed for APS-C, just as there were APS-C lenses specifically designed for DSLRs. Not many of course, initially just a kit lens, but I would expect at least 2 or 3 others to follow. It's not as if Canon don't have the manufacturing capacity.
> 
> On Canon's crop DSLRs, lenses designed especially for them were very popular e.g. the 18-135mm. That lens was pretty awful, but there were some truly excellent APS-C lenses, such as the acclaimed EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. It would be disappointing (and to me, surprising) if there were no RF lenses produced specifically for APS-C.



I think what we'll see is lenses that have popped up in the patents where the image circle is just a little too dark at the corners for a full frame, but work with in camera corrections (think the 24-240). These lenses are well suited to APSc sensors, and because of their design look like they'll be nice and compact. There is really no good reason for them to do an RF-s mount. The smaller mirror on APSc DSLRs allowed the rear of the lens to get a little closer to the sensor and had some advantages, but there will be diminishing returns with the already short flange distance of the RF body. 

Brian


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?
> 
> After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.


I thought the Corolla _was_ a low-cost Camry. 

Not a perfect analogy because the market for cars hasn't shrunk by 90% over the past ten years, unlike cameras. Canon is diverse enough that they'll survive just fine, but as far as cameras go, they're the big fish in smaller and smaller pond.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I promise you, you will be delighted with the R6+1.4xTC+100-400 and that it's basically equivalent (if I am allowed to used the word) at f/11 to the bare 100-400mm at f/8 on 15 Mpx APS-C. A 20-24 Mpx R APS-C would be very nice. The R6 has a very good sensor and delivers very crisp images. An R5 with the 100-500mm would have cost you double.


Alan, how does the RF 100-400mm compare with the EF 100-400mm and the RF 100-500mm in terms of AF speed?

Does the smallish F8 aperture at 400mm slow down the acquisition time?

Putting a 1.4x extender on it knocks the max aperture down to F11 at 400mm, so presumably this restricts the AF area to the large square zone, as is the case with the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Nov 30, 2021)

For all of us armchair market analysts who know for certain that Canon "should" release a low-end or high-end APS-C body first, Sony recently announced that due to chip shortages, they were going to stop accepting orders for two of their three current APS-C bodies, the a6100 and a6400, which are the low end and mid range ones. The high end a6600 can still be ordered, at least for now.

I'm not sure what factors contributed to that choice, but given the high commonality of parts between the three, it's interesting that they chose to prioritize the more expensive model over the (I'm guessing) higher volume models.

Source:








Due the chip shortage Sony announces the production stop of the α7II, A6400, A6100, ECM-B1M mic and PXW-Z190 camcorder - sonyalpharumors


Sony Japan announced the production halt of some Alpha cameras. As usual blame the worldwide chip shortage for that! Google translated text: Notice and apology regarding temporary suspension of orders for digital imaging products Thank you for your continued patronage of Sony products...




www.sonyalpharumors.com


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Alan, how does the RF 100-400mm compare with the EF 100-400mm and the RF 100-500mm in terms of AF speed?
> 
> Does the smallish F8 aperture at 400mm slow down the acquisition time?
> 
> Putting a 1.4x extender on it knocks the max aperture down to F11 at 400mm, so presumably this restricts the AF area to the large square zone, as is the case with the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses?


Gordon Laing has just reviewed the RF 100-400mm and concurs that it has very speedy AF. I can’t tell the difference from the other two lenses. It’s been fine for the limited BIF so far. The image rectangle is not restricted on using the TC. Gordon also concurs that stopping down doesn’t increase IQ. And the corners aren’t too bad for distant scenes. It performs above its pay grade.


----------



## tataylino (Nov 30, 2021)

So, the end of eos M?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Not many of course, initially just a kit lens,


The problem there is illustrative of the problem with the whole RF APS-C idea. There’s not a lot of room between the EF-M 15-45 that lists for $300 and the RF 24-105/4-7.1 that lists for $400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 30, 2021)

tataylino said:


> So, the end of eos M?


Yes, just like Toyota is dropping the Corolla.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Gordon Laing has just reviewed the RF 100-400mm and concurs that it has very speedy AF. I can’t tell the difference from the other two lenses. It’s been fine for the limited BIF so far. The image rectangle is not restricted on using the TC. Gordon also concurs that stopping down doesn’t increase IQ. And the corners aren’t too bad for distant scenes. It performs above its pay grade.


Worth considering for BIF then, where the light weight will reduce muscle fatigue. The "budget" RF lenses are surprisingly good - my 800mm F11 can't quite match my EF 100-400mm and 1.4x iii combo (wide open at F8 with extender) for sharpness, but is a lot better than I had expected for the price. A friend of mine is considering the RF100-400mm so I'll direct him to Gordon's review.

Strange that the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses can only use the large square AF zone, if the full frame area can be used at F11 with the RF 100-400mm & 1.4x combo.


----------



## entoman (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The problem there is illustrative of the problem with the whole RF APS-C idea. There’s not a lot of room between the EF-M 15-45 that lists for $300 and the RF 24-105/4-7.1 that lists for $400.


Nevertheless it seems that Canon is going ahead with RF APS-C, if the rumour is reliable, which in turn would indicate that Canon believe there is a profitable market for it.

I'd consider an APS-C if it had around 28MP, which compares with the 17MP you get if you crop an R5 down to APS-C dimensions.

For me, it's the reach of the lenses that attracts - e.g. a 70-300mm on APS-C would be roughly equivalent to a 100-400mm on FF, but significantly cheaper, lighter and more compact.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're not kidding. I unboxed my R3 yesterday, and honestly it feels like a toy compared to the picking up the 1D X sitting next to it.


and drum rolll.... where is the unboxing video?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
> 
> I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.


You have made this assertion many times and it seems logical but I don't think that anyone would disagree that Canon was late to the FF mirrorless party and even then the R was clearly using the 5Div spare parts inventory. 
The R5/R6 were clearly built from the ground up (R6 with 1DXiii sensor) and are now very competitive but were released 7 years after the Sony a7/a7r and still 2-3 years after Sony's 3rd generation a7 bodies. 

Sony's current market share (in my opinion) was built mostly from Canon users as they were able to adapt their EF lenses even if the adapters weren't perfect. Canon still remains the market share leader but I wonder what share it could have had with some competitive ff mirrorless models years earlier.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The handful of people posting on Internet forums are essentially irrelevant as far as the broader market goes.


True, but it probably would be the best focus group they could ask for


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2021)

AlP said:


> While I am not sure about how likely a 7D-type of RF aps-c camera would be, I also don't think that there will be "RF-S" lenses.
> There are already RF lenses which require some stretching in post-processing on a full-frame sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon will release further lenses with focal lengths which are kind of typical for aps-c sensors, but which also work on full frame with significant post-processing.
> Most of the lenses released so far which fit into that category are rather light and lower-cost, and not that different in terms of size and weight from EF-S lenses. A dedicated set of RF-S lenses would likely have no significant advantage in terms of weight or cost, and wouldn't work on full frame.


RF-s lenses will be an interesting market... low cost kit lenses are needed and needs to be much less than the USD1300 RP+ 24-105mm f/4-7.1

The biggest issue is wide angle. Any rumoured 10mm+ lens is likely to be a RF equivalent for the EF11-24mm L series but an equivalent EF-s 10-22mm would be missing. Of course, adapted EF-s lenses could be the solution or at least a welded adapter to the current EF-s 10-22mm similar to the RF 400/600mm variants


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2021)

entoman said:


> Worth considering for BIF then, where the light weight will reduce muscle fatigue. The "budget" RF lenses are surprisingly good - my 800mm F11 can't quite match my EF 100-400mm and 1.4x iii combo (wide open at F8 with extender) for sharpness, but is a lot better than I had expected for the price. A friend of mine is considering the RF100-400mm so I'll direct him to Gordon's review.
> 
> Strange that the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses can only use the large square AF zone, if the full frame area can be used at F11 with the RF 100-400mm & 1.4x combo.


The 100-500+1.4x at f/10 uses the full area and +2xTC a larger area at f/14 than the 800 at f/11.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.


Don't let the truth get in the way of a key marketing spec sheet number... 32mp is always better than 20mp! /s


----------



## wyotex43n (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.


So Canon makes more money if you buy the 400 f4 or even better the 400 2.8 . My point is I think a lot of people who want this for birding just want the reach/megapixels on the bird or fur. Canon will use this to make the most money. 
If Canon could make an 80 Mpixel 20 fps ff camera that would work for them also but it would probably cost more. There are other tradeoff like you mention but I think this is what drives the" WE Want A R7 "comments. Its been my experience that logic and facts do not drive buying decisions as much as we think. 
FYi I shoot with my R5 and the EF 100-400 and sometimes with the 1.4 adapter. Even with the 1.4 on I think the results are better than I got with my 7dmk2 with the same lens. The keeper rate is way higher.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> You have made this assertion many times and it seems logical but I don't think that anyone would disagree that Canon was late to the FF mirrorless party and even then the R was clearly using the 5Div spare parts inventory.
> 
> The R5/R6 were clearly built from the ground up (R6 with 1DXiii sensor) and are now very competitive but were released 7 years after the Sony a7/a7r and still 2-3 years after Sony's 3rd generation a7 bodies.


A decade ago, the all-knowing interwebs made it clear that Canon was late to the APS-C mirrorless party, and that the original M was a lackluster entry that was barely a glorified PowerShot with a detachable lens. That story ended with Canon leading the APS-C MILC market after~5 years. I wonder where the FF MILC story will end up?

Sony started the FF MILC market just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market that Sony had been leading. That was not a coincidence. The problem for Sony is that they’ve nowhere left to run. #vaio



David - Sydney said:


> Sony's current market share (in my opinion) was built mostly from Canon users as they were able to adapt their EF lenses even if the adapters weren't perfect. Canon still remains the market share leader but I wonder what share it could have had with some competitive ff mirrorless models years earlier.


The numbers for the past few years show that most of Sony’s gains were at Nikon’s expense (as were Canon’s gains).


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A decade ago, the all-knowing interwebs made it clear that Canon was late to the APS-C mirrorless party, and that the original M was a lackluster entry that was barely a glorified PowerShot with a detachable lens. That story ended with Canon leading the APS-C MILC market after~5 years. I wonder where the FF MILC story will end up?


The EF-m mount was an excellent call for Canon and I assume is a cash cow for them now but I was referring to the ff mirrorless market



neuroanatomist said:


> Sony started the FF MILC market just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market that Sony had been leading. That was not a coincidence. The problem for Sony is that they’ve nowhere left to run. #vaio
> The numbers for the past few years show that most of Sony’s gains were at Nikon’s expense (as were Canon’s gains).


The gross numbers/market share does show this but Sony's ff mirrorless sales (and now installed base) came from somewhere. My assertion is based on Sony's ability to use adapted EF lenses (and personal experience of professional landscape togs that subsequently became Sony ambassadors) is that they moved mostly from Canon. 
Canon (and Nikon) left the ff mirrorless segment to Sony for many years. Canon (and Nikon) watched for a long time and didn't appear to be concerned.... until it became suddenly important enough to release the R based on existing parts.

Those that moved now have significant Sony glass and are less likely to move and supported by a vocal bunch of advocates.
I don't have any specific knowledge about why Nikon now has smaller sales - in an increasingly smaller market.
I agree that Sony now has broken the Canon/Nikon duopoly and that they are all competing more-or-less equally in the same market segments now.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I think the situation has changed one helluva lot because of the introduction of excellent narrow aperture lenses. As you say, a 40-45 Mpx sensor requires the quality lenses to go with it. Basically, they need to be f/4 or wider to take advantage of those small pixels. The 45 Mpx of the R5 become rather wasted for apertures narrower than f/7.1.


Yes, and I was referring to a 45MP APS-c sensor, which would be equivalent to a 115 MP FF sensor. That would put the pixel pitch at around 2.7 microns and the DLA just a bit over f/4, which pretty much limits long shots to Big Whites if you want to get the most out of the sensor. OTOH, the Nikon P1000 is f/8 at the long end (540mm) and has a pixel pitch of 1.3 microns. It takes remarkably good pictures considering the limitations. I find that sharpening the long reach P1000 shots works best with a radius around 2, so effectively about half the linear resolution of the sensor. As you noted the other day, more pixels never hurt, but there is a law of diminishing returns. Dense sensors also highlight the weak spots in just about any lens. It will be interesting to see if Canon does an R body follow-on to the 5DS(r) and if so, just how high they will push the resolution. Considering the P1000 has a 125x zoom (closer to 140x if you use DXO PL to process the wide shots), that is one amazing piece of glass. The VC and the AF are a little spotty at the long end, but if you nail focus and catch the VC in the right mood, the results are stunning. I usually shoot in 3 or 4 shot bursts and it seems for one or two the VC will be in range. If there is enough light, the P1000 is the closest thing I have to the 800L with a 2x TC strapped to a 90D and that is saying something for camera that cost me well under $1k. It is also very portable. The red shouldered hawk below is a 100% crop at 324mm f/7.1 (1800mm FF equiv.). The Sparrow (also a 100% crop) was at full reach of 539mm f/8 (3000mm FF equiv.). Some careful processing is required, but the results can be quite good. The bokeh isn't great, but then neither is the 800L all that fantastic in the bokeh department. ￼


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF-m mount was an excellent call for Canon and I assume is a cash cow for them now but I was referring to the ff mirrorless market


My point was that the statements you made about Canon’s entry into the FF MILC market are near-perfect echoes of common forum posts during the Canon’s entry into the APS-C MILC market. With no judgement on the validity of those statements at the time, the fact is that 5-6 years later Canon was leading that market segment.

They’ve only been in the FF MILC game for 3.5 years.




David - Sydney said:


> The gross numbers/market share does show this but Sony's ff mirrorless sales (and now installed base) came from somewhere.


Indeed. In early 2018, Canon’s share of the FF MILC market was zero. It’s grown a lot since then…from where? Sony.


----------



## dominic_siu (Dec 1, 2021)

reisi007 said:


> With an EF-M to RF converter I am going to buy this and the new 100mm macro (if the camera is at least equivalent to the m50)


I think Canon will just ditch EF-M


reisi007 said:


> With an EF-M to RF converter I am going to buy this and the new 100mm macro (if the camera is at least equivalent to the m50)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

dominic_siu said:


> I think Canon will just ditch EF-M


Of the 10 best-selling camera kits in Japan, 6 are from Canon and 3 of those are EOS M series, and the other 3 are DSLRs. 

In this thread, we have people claiming that Canon is going to abandon DSLRs and the EOS M line. Either Canon is out of touch with reality, or the people making those claims are. I know where I’m placing my bet.


----------



## BBarn (Dec 1, 2021)

An RF mount APS-C mirrorless makes sense for birders, but little else. Existing mirrorless APS-C cameras sell for only a little less than their FF counterparts, and aren't much smaller or lighter when using mounts common to FF. 

Catering to the birders is fine, but there exists very little advantage to APS-C in terms of size or weight when utilizing a FF mount. After having and using an RP for the last year, I wouldn't consider going back to an APS-C. Cost and weight savings would be minimal, and it would represent a step back for most uses. Saddle an APS-C camera with a FF mount and you sacrifice most of the potential advantages of a camera with the smaller sensor.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. In early 2018, Canon’s share of the FF MILC market was zero. It’s grown a lot since then…from where? Sony.


Clearly I was meaning that the migration was from Canon FF DLSR. 
Sony's FF DLSR volume was insignificant with their a77/a77ii but they did have a market peak around 13% for DLSRs (mostly APS) with their Minolta acquisition and development back in 2008.
I don't have the figures but the total FF mirrorless market volumes have increased since Canon/Nikon entered the market and DLSR users within their ecosystems migrated over time (like me and you). To infer that all Canon's ff mirrorless sales are at the expense of Sony would be silly. Sony's % market share has dropped appropriately in the ff mirrorless segment. I believe that the rate of migration from Canon/Nikon to Sony has now decreased dramatically but not to zero. Sony still has a unique flagship product A1 in a small form factor whereas R3/Z9 are full sized (if smaller than 1D/D6).

My original point was that Canon was slow to enter the FF mirrorless market. They had all the market data and perhaps could have slowed the migration to Sony over many years. No company has perfect forecasting ability even with the data at hand. 

In hindsight (and this is all about hindsight), if Canon and Nikon followed Sony's lead to introduce competitors in the FF mirrorless market - even a year behind - then would Sony have been able to invest in continued R&D to get to where they are now ie #2 behind a once formidable Nikon?


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 1, 2021)

With news like this, no wonder Nikon has a clear path with the Z9.


----------



## sanj (Dec 1, 2021)

Yummy


----------



## sanj (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> There is a huge market for an R7…
> 
> I know so many people who are holding out for one.
> 
> Thats why Canon will release an apa-c RF mount canera.


Most certainly. Time will show. And if there was not one, Canon would not make this camera. Do not let people doubt you.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> My original point was that Canon was slow to enter the FF mirrorless market. They had all the market data and perhaps could have slowed the migration to Sony over many years. No company has perfect forecasting ability even with the data at hand.
> 
> In hindsight (and this is all about hindsight), if Canon and Nikon followed Sony's lead to introduce competitors in the FF mirrorless market - even a year behind - then would Sony have been able to invest in continued R&D to get to where they are now ie #2 behind a once formidable Nikon?


Sony spent 4.9 billion on R&D last year, Canon spent 2.6 billion.
Sony's market cap is 153 billion.
Canons market cap is 29 billion.
Do you really think that Canon entering the mirrorless market sooner could slow Sony's R&D?
It could have had the opposite effect, if you are trying to take over a market you do not spend less when someone else gets in the arena. You have to spend to win.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

sanj said:


> Most certainly. Time will show. And if there was not one, Canon would not make this camera. Do not let people doubt you.


Of course…no one should be deterred by a lack of data to support their opinion.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Sony spent 4.9 billion on R&D last year, Canon spent 2.6 billion.
> Sony's market cap is 153 billion.
> Canons market cap is 29 billion.
> Do you really think that Canon entering the mirrorless market sooner could slow Sony's R&D?
> It could have had the opposite effect, if you are trying to take over a market you do not spend less when someone else gets in the arena. You have to spend to win.


Canon is predominately a imaging company including medical, scanning and printing. Cameras and lenses are core businesses for Canon but only represent ~12% of revenue as per John's analysis.

Sony is one of the most comprehensive media companies
- the largest video game console company
- the largest video game publisher
- one of the largest music companies (largest music publisher & second largest record label)
- third largest film studio
- the largest player in the premium TV market for a television of at least 55 inches (>$2,500)
- the second largest TV brand by market share
- the third largest television manufacturer in the world by annual sales figures.

Further down the list... Sony has
- 55% market share in the image sensor market and is the largest manufacturer of image sensors
- the second largest camera manufacturer
Takesome1 provided that ~12% of revenue from both these segments which would be ~ the same as canon's cameras.

Sony has probably been able to share R&D costs from their image sensor division and probably also image processing (sharing engineering between Playstation and Bionz).
Sony made a play for the camera market by buying Minolta and have built it up from there.

IF a big company tries to enter a market segment and has limited success over time whilst bleeding R&D and marketing dollars that they could use elsewhere then they will sell the business unit off to the highest bidder. The corporate world is littered with examples. For instance, I expect Sony to sell or close down their mobile phone manufacturing soon. Betamax and the many Sony proprietary memory/recording formats have died a slow death.
Sony would likely retain the image sensor business even if they sold their camera business due to their market strength (and I assume profitability)


----------



## Otara (Dec 1, 2021)

I dont know whats coming, but a 90D equivalent would be of interest to me. I expect something in that area as a starting point, where its good for video and stills without stealing higher end R thunder too much.

I mean a 7D equivalent would be possibly great, but I suspect thats hoping for too much, I think we were probably lucky to even get the 7D2.


----------



## tapanit (Dec 1, 2021)

dlee13 said:


> I doubt possible but if it is a RF Mount EF-M style camera, would be cool if you could still somehow use EF-M lenses with it.


A generic EF-M -> RF adapter would only be possible with optical elements that'd make it heavy and expensive and reduce optical quality, as well as changing the focal length (or, theoretically, losing infinity focus). Not likely to happen. Perhaps a 3rd party will make one, but don't expect miracles from the quality.

If, however, Canon were to design a new body with that in mind, they could make it work by making the sensor move outwards when the adapter is used. That would be the perfect solution for EF-M lens owners. It would, however, be a pretty complex design with fragile moving parts. Even less likely than the above.

A third possibility would be a design where the mount is removable, i.e., you could put in either RF or M mount as needed. In effect it'd be a meta-mount for mounting different mounts. Technically it should be possible, but the likelyhood of Canon doing that is far in the fantasy land.

The fourth hope is that my imagination is lacking and Canon pulls a rabbit out of their hat and makes it happen in some way I can't think of.


----------



## TravelerNick (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?
> 
> After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.



If you want to use the Toyota analogy look at how they've moved hybrid down the range. It makes more sense to concentrate your R&D in one direction than to spread it out .

The better question is does a crop sensor bring anything over a cheap FF camera?


----------



## TravelerNick (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?



Locally I can't think of one major electronics shop with a single camera on display. I don't mean a DSLR I mean ANYTHING that isn't a smartphone. 

The only place you can get a DSLR is a dedicated camera shop or online. Most of those are pro level shops. The consumer shops have mostly died.

That doesn't sound like a desirable large market.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 1, 2021)

I don't see the reasoning in this camera. It makes no sense based on Canon's current line-up. Every resource should be placed to the R1 from a PM and Engineering perspective.


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 1, 2021)

tapanit said:


> A generic EF-M -> RF adapter would only be possible with optical elements that'd make it heavy and expensive and reduce optical quality, as well as changing the focal length (or, theoretically, losing infinity focus). Not likely to happen. Perhaps a 3rd party will make one, but don't expect miracles from the quality.
> 
> If, however, Canon were to design a new body with that in mind, they could make it work by making the sensor move outwards when the adapter is used. That would be the perfect solution for EF-M lens owners. It would, however, be a pretty complex design with fragile moving parts. Even less likely than the above.
> 
> ...


Yeah so sadly chances are slim to none... 

I'm still more fond of the idea that they make the EF-M line the new Rebel line then make a high end R7 body to be used with FF RF lenses.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 1, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Locally I can't think of one major electronics shop with a single camera on display. I don't mean a DSLR I mean ANYTHING that isn't a smartphone.
> 
> The only place you can get a DSLR is a dedicated camera shop or online. Most of those are pro level shops. The consumer shops have mostly died.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a desirable large market.


For Denmark, the number of dedicated camera shops have plummeted to have become be a rarity. There are two stores in all of Denmark that are carrying the professional cameras like the EOS R3 and the Big Whites. Similar for Nikon's pro cameras & lenses.

If you want to buy a (pro)consumer DSLR, the easiest thing is to go to the large IT & white-goods chains like www.elgiganten.dk and www.power.dk who have both physical and online stores.
So the situation here is quite the opposite of what you are seeing. (I'm not trying to say that you're wrong; just observing that the situation here is different).


----------



## TravelerNick (Dec 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> For Denmark, the number of dedicated camera shops have plummeted to have become be a rarity. There are two stores in all of Denmark that are carrying the professional cameras like the EOS R3 and the Big Whites. Similar for Nikon's pro cameras & lenses.
> 
> If you want to buy a (pro)consumer DSLR, the easiest thing is to go to the large IT & white-goods chains like www.elgiganten.dk and www.power.dk who have both physical and online stores.
> So the situation here is quite the opposite of what you are seeing. (I'm not trying to say that you're wrong; just observing that the situation here is different).



I just checked the mediaworld website (Italian version of MediaMart) they are showing zero cameras in stock at my local shop. The few you can order will take two weeks to show up.


----------



## AlP (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> RF-s lenses will be an interesting market... low cost kit lenses are needed and needs to be much less than the USD1300 RP+ 24-105mm f/4-7.1
> 
> The biggest issue is wide angle. Any rumoured 10mm+ lens is likely to be a RF equivalent for the EF11-24mm L series but an equivalent EF-s 10-22mm would be missing. Of course, adapted EF-s lenses could be the solution or at least a welded adapter to the current EF-s 10-22mm similar to the RF 400/600mm variants


Where I live the canon RF 50 f/1.8 is only slightly more expensive than the EF-S 24 mm f/2.8 and cheaper than the EF-M 22 f/2. The cheapest Canon lens is the EF 50 mm f/1.8 (I am aware that those are different focal lengths, I am just taking the cheapest canon lens for each mount). While it's true that the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 is about twice as expensive (but still not so expensive in absolute terms) than the EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (current prices, not launch prices), there isn't a lot of space in between.

Of course that difference can be a showstopper for those who are looking for the lowest possible price, but with sufficient potential sales numbers and some further simplifications I think Canon would be able to bring one or two very basic full-frame RF-zooms to market, or just lower the price of the existing one. If that happens it might not make sense to have a dedicated line of lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Worth considering for BIF then, where the light weight will reduce muscle fatigue. The "budget" RF lenses are surprisingly good - my 800mm F11 can't quite match my EF 100-400mm and 1.4x iii combo (wide open at F8 with extender) for sharpness, but is a lot better than I had expected for the price. A friend of mine is considering the RF100-400mm so I'll direct him to Gordon's review.
> 
> Strange that the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses can only use the large square AF zone, if the full frame area can be used at F11 with the RF 100-400mm & 1.4x combo.


How are you comparing the 100-400mm II with the 800mm f/11? If you are looking at a distant bird then, the 800mm should beat the 400, even with the TC hands down from the same distance, which I find. If, on the other hand, you stand at half the distance with the 100-400 so that the image is the same size on the sensor, the 100-400 will be significantly better.


----------



## vangelismm (Dec 1, 2021)

Slow rumors news this weeks.
The last engagement topic was R1, so it time for the R APS-C. 
See you guys in a few weeks when R1 rumors is back in rotation.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 1, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> Slow rumors news this weeks.
> The last engagement topic was R1, so it time for the R APS-C.
> See you guys in a few weeks when R1 rumors is back in rotation.



Don't forget the other common topics in the we-need-more-clicks cycle:

- Software update coming
- Lens roadmap update
- Cinema EOS (yawn)
- Patents (fun to see people freak out)
- Stock notice at Adorama
- Somebody posted a review of a Canon product somewhere


----------



## Kit. (Dec 1, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Locally I can't think of one major electronics shop with a single camera on display. I don't mean a DSLR I mean ANYTHING that isn't a smartphone.
> 
> The only place you can get a DSLR is a dedicated camera shop or online. Most of those are pro level shops. The consumer shops have mostly died.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a desirable large market.


Here in Munich, I can even see EOS R6 in stock at some electronics retailers (Saturn in the city center in particular).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

tapanit said:


> A generic EF-M -> RF adapter would only be possible with optical elements that'd make it heavy and expensive and reduce optical quality, as well as changing the focal length (or, theoretically, losing infinity focus). Not likely to happen. Perhaps a 3rd party will make one, but don't expect miracles from the quality.
> 
> If, however, Canon were to design a new body with that in mind, they could make it work by making the sensor move outwards when the adapter is used. That would be the perfect solution for EF-M lens owners. It would, however, be a pretty complex design with fragile moving parts. Even less likely than the above.
> 
> ...


Nice engineering solutions that have about zero chance of being implemented to adapt lenses costing a few hundred dollars.


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> How are you comparing the 100-400mm II with the 800mm f/11? If you are looking at a distant bird then, the 800mm should beat the 400, even with the TC hands down from the same distance, which I find. If, on the other hand, you stand at half the distance with the 100-400 so that the image is the same size on the sensor, the 100-400 will be significantly better.


It's the nearest comparison that I can make, with the gear I own, i.e. EF 100-400mm Mkii, 1.4x Mkiii extender and RF 800mm F11.

So I'm comparing RF 800mm F11 full size image with EF 100-400mm & 1.4x wide open (560mm F8), with the latter cropped to give the same field area as the 800mm.

Despite all the negatives (i.e. zoom at maximum focal length, wide open, with an extender) multiple tests show this combo gives sharper images than the RF 800mm (although the latter is of course much lighter, and a lot cheaper). The zoom set-up gives me anything from 140mm F6.3 to 560mm F8, a much closer MFD, full area AF with tracking, and sharper images when cropped to the same size as I'd get with 800mm.

I don't have the 2x EF extender, which would give 800mm F11 on the zoom, but I suspect that the RF800mm would be sharper, as the 2x extender has a bad reputation for image quality.


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Here in Munich, I can even see EOS R6 in stock at some electronics retailers (Saturn in the city center in particular).


3 or 4 years ago you could walk into several general electronics stores, or into duty-free electronics outlets at London airports, and find a wide range of DSLR and MILC bodies and lenses from Sony, Nikon and Canon on display. I often spent a hour or so playing with various body/lens combinations at Heathrow airport while waiting for a plane.

Nowadays it's very difficult to find anything other than a smartphone in a duty-free shop or a general electronics store. More or less the only way to handle a camera before purchase is to visit a major camera store such as Jessops, but even there the range available is quite limited and they have to order in anything "unusual" like a macro lens.

This is a great shame because it forces many people to shop "blind" on-line, and rely on the often biased reviews on the internet. It's possible of course to hire before buying, but there are only AFAIK 3 or 4 rental companies in the UK, and rental prices are high enough to prevent most people from going that route.


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> 3 or 4 years ago you could walk into several general electronics stores, or into duty-free electronics outlets at London airports, and find a wide range of DSLR and MILC bodies and lenses from Sony, Nikon and Canon on display. I often spent a hour or so playing with various body/lens combinations at Heathrow airport while waiting for a plane.
> 
> Nowadays it's very difficult to find anything other than a smartphone in a duty-free shop or a general electronics store. More or less the only way to handle a camera before purchase is to visit a major camera store such as Jessops, but even there the range available is quite limited and they have to order in anything "unusual" like a macro lens.
> 
> This is a great shame because it forces many people to shop "blind" on-line, and rely on the often biased reviews on the internet. It's possible of course to hire before buying, but there are only AFAIK 3 or 4 rental companies in the UK, and rental prices are high enough to prevent most people from going that route.


I agree with this purchasing viewpoint and in actual use something I noticed while in Disney and CA adventure for three days last week....

Packed to the gills, both parks, in 3 days I saw ONE dslr and ONE milc camera. I surmised a thing or two as you could imagine.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> It's the nearest comparison that I can make, with the gear I own, i.e. EF 100-400mm Mkii, 1.4x Mkiii extender and RF 800mm F11.
> 
> So I'm comparing RF 800mm F11 full size image with EF 100-400mm & 1.4x wide open (560mm F8), with the latter cropped to give the same field area as the 800mm.
> 
> ...


Don't take this personally, but I think you have a poor copy of the 800/11. I've owned 3 copies of the 100-400mm II, borrowed an 800/11 for a week before buying my present one, and both 800s are sharper than the best of my 100-400mm II ± 1.4xTCs cropped to the same size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Locally I can't think of one major electronics shop with a single camera on display. I don't mean a DSLR I mean ANYTHING that isn't a smartphone.
> 
> The only place you can get a DSLR is a dedicated camera shop or online. Most of those are pro level shops. The consumer shops have mostly died.
> 
> That doesn't sound like a desirable large market.


Sad for you. There’s a Best Buy (nationwide big box electronics retailer, computers, dishwashers, etc.) 3 km from my house that has the R, R5, R6, 5DIV, M-series and Rebel/xxxD, and many Canon lenses including L-series in stock. They have display counters a few meters long for each of Csnon, Nikon and Sony (with a small area of Panasonic and Fuji).

There are >20 Best Buy stores in my state, I’ve been in 3-4 of them and all have a dedicated camera section. There is also a camera store chain around here (Hunts Photo), and a few independent camera shops as well (there were more of those a few years ago).


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Don't take this personally, but I think you have a poor copy of the 800/11. I've owned 3 copies of the 100-400mm II, borrowed an 800/11 for a week before buying my present one, and both 800s are sharper than the best of my 100-400mm II ± 1.4xTCs cropped to the same size.


Quite possible, or alternatively I might have a very good copy of the EF100-400mm and 1.4x. Either way I'm happy, as the difference is only apparent when pixel peeping.

In the UK, birds are typically small and nervous, so I tend to use the RF 800mm for fairly static birds unless the light is really poor (although I wouldn't use it for BIF, because I like to be able to zoom out to locate the bird easily, and then zoom in for the shot).

In the tropics or on safaris I've found that I use both equally as often, as I'm usually in a hide or a vehicle, and don't have to walk about carrying a lot of gear. My next long-haul trip is in March, so I've got plenty of time to decide on gear replacements/upgrades. Most likely I'll sell the EF 100-400mm and 1.4x, and get the RF 100-500mm, and continue to use the RF800mm where I need something longer.

Incidentally, a point that many birders miss, especially in the tropics, is that the effect of atmospheric haze and heat haze can contribute hugely to image degradation, so it's nearly always best to get as close to the subject as possible, rather than take the seemingly easy route of using long focal lengths. So when I'm using the 800mm it is usually for small birds at near the MFD of the 800mm - another situation where the much shorter MFD of the zoom outweighs the weight saving of the 800mm.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Quite possible, or alternatively I might have a very good copy of the EF100-400mm and 1.4x. Either way I'm happy, as the difference is only apparent when pixel peeping.
> 
> In the UK, birds are typically small and nervous, so I tend to use the RF 800mm for fairly static birds unless the light is really poor (although I wouldn't use it for BIF, because I like to be able to zoom out to locate the bird easily, and then zoom in for the shot).
> 
> ...


I did point out I have had 3 copies of the 100-400mm II (and 3 EF 1.4xIII), and 2 copies of the 800 f/11, so I think your alternative is less likely, especially as Roger Cicala found the 100-400mm II had the least copy variation of lenses he had tested up to that point. Also, which may be useful advice, as I have just told sanj who is kitting up for an Africa trip, the 100-500mm II + 2x TC at 1000mm outperformed the 800mm f/11 so you will save weight and space by taking an RF 2x instead of it if you have the RF 100-500mm.


----------



## InchMetric (Dec 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If the Canons CEOs read this site and maybe a few others, they KNOW that people want an R-ASPC camera. They could save the money for an expansive marketing research team, spent this cash for developing one or two lenses for each APS-C line (M and RF) and make everybody happy


A couple dozen nerds on the internet does not a market make. Canon knows far more than reading a discussion site could tell them.


----------



## reefroamer (Dec 1, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If the Canons CEOs read this site and maybe a few others, they KNOW that people want an R-ASPC camera. They could save the money for an expansive marketing research team, spent this cash for developing one or two lenses for each APS-C line (M and RF) and make everybody happy


They would know that SOME people want an R-APSC camera. Based on their internal sales figures for the 7D and 7D2, plus their market research, they probably have a pretty good idea of how many R7-type bodies they would sell. Any CEO who makes business decisions based on Internet forums such as this probably will have a short tenure in his/her job.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> IF a big company tries to enter a market segment and has limited success over time whilst bleeding R&D and marketing dollars that they could use elsewhere then they will sell the business unit off to the highest bidder. The corporate world is littered with examples. For instance, I expect Sony to sell or close down their mobile phone manufacturing soon. Betamax and the many Sony proprietary memory/recording formats have died a slow death.
> Sony would likely retain the image sensor business even if they sold their camera business due to their market strength (and I assume profitability)



Sony is already researching sensors, that is one of the biggest R&D items for a camera so they would be doing that R&D anyway.
I think your logic is flawed in this particular situation.

Talking Sony's success and failures, Betamax came out in 1975 and VHS in 1977.
Being first and the only one in the market doesn't guarantee success and market share.

This discussion is like Marvel's latest cartoon "What If"?
Fortunately we live in this universe.


----------



## PerKr (Dec 1, 2021)

What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Fortunately we live in this universe.


I don't think that applies to everyone who posts here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

PerKr said:


> What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?


When there's an RF-mount body + kit lens that lists for $550, that question will actually make sense.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 1, 2021)

PerKr said:


> What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?



The fact that it sells like hotcakes.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
> 
> I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.


The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.

I’m only going off of what I know, and that’s that loads of nature photographers want an R7 (and a 500mm f5.6)…


----------



## TravelerNick (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sad for you. There’s a Best Buy (nationwide big box electronics retailer, computers, dishwashers, etc.) 3 km from my house that has the R, R5, R6, 5DIV, M-series and Rebel/xxxD, and many Canon lenses including L-series in stock. They have display counters a few meters long for each of Csnon, Nikon and Sony (with a small area of Panasonic and Fuji).
> 
> There are >20 Best Buy stores in my state, I’ve been in 3-4 of them and all have a dedicated camera section. There is also a camera store chain around here (Hunts Photo), and a few independent camera shops as well (there were more of those a few years ago).



Are people actually buying? I personally can't think of any non photographer who would buy a standalone camera today. Maybe during the lockdown some bought cameras for the kids in place of a web camera. But virtually everybody uses their phone instead of a camera. 

The shop I mentioned might be twice the size of a best buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.


>40% of the world is still DSLRs. Actually, it's more than that since 40% is the fraction of ILCs produced this year that were DSLRs. The installed base of DSLRs is still much higher, because it was only 2 years ago that MILCs overtook DSLRs in camera production.



Jasonmc89 said:


> I’m only going off of what I know, and that’s that loads of nature photographers want an R7 (and a 500mm f5.6)…


Ahhh yes, "loads of nature photographers". How many is 'loads'? Do you know? I don't. But I can guarantee you that Canon has a much better sense of that than either of us. The 7-series was on a 5-year cycle anyway, the longest of any Canon series (even the 1-series are on a 4-year cycle, and the xxD and xxxD models were much shorter). If there were "loads of nature photographers" buying high-end APS-C cameras, why did the 7-series languish?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Are people actually buying? I personally can't think of any non photographer who would buy a standalone camera today. Maybe during the lockdown some bought cameras for the kids in place of a web camera. But virtually everybody uses their phone instead of a camera.
> 
> The shop I mentioned might be twice the size of a best buy.


Well, I don't camp out in the store and keep a tally. But there are cameras and lenses they have in stock, then they are sold out of them. Then they get more in. From that, I conclude that yes, people are actually buying.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> >40% of the world is still DSLRs. Actually, it's more than that since 40% is the fraction of ILCs produced this year that were DSLRs. The installed base of DSLRs is still much higher, because it was only 2 years ago that MILCs overtook DSLRs in camera production.
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes, "loads of nature photographers". How many is 'loads'? Do you know? I don't. But I can guarantee you that Canon has a much better sense of that than either of us. The 7-series was on a 5-year cycle anyway, the longest of any Canon series (even the 1-series are on a 4-year cycle, and the xxD and xxxD models were much shorter). If there were "loads of nature photographers" buying high-end APS-C cameras, why did the 7-series languish?


Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Dec 1, 2021)

I know this isn't popular opinion, but I think that, if they really want to legitimize consumer acceptance of the R line, Canon really needs to lead with an APS-C R camera that lands somewhere around the specs and size of the M50. It continues to amaze me that the M cameras sell so well despite being a total orphan (or bastard stepchild, depending on my mood that day) in the overall Canon lineup. Folding some or most of those future sales into the R architecture would help to ensure that the R line continues to grow. And though the technological limitations make it very highly unlikely as previously discussed, an EF-M to R adapter would help current M users like myself to stop being stuck in both worlds. 

Let's face it. Canon has never shown the M line much love, and it's dying of neglect right now. Killing it off by making a clear path into the R platform would help to not alienate the many many consumers who have bought into the line. I know everyone is clamoring for a high end "R7" type of entry. And hopefully that comes too. But the consumer market is what really pays the bills. And a cohesive architecture on the low end would really help launch the R to much greater heights than it has been so far.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.
> 
> I’m only going off of what I know, and that’s that loads of nature photographers want an R7 (and a 500mm f5.6)…


I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.


I’d love to have a go of the 100-500! Haven’t used one yet. I can certainly see your reasoning. Just think that having that 5.6 over 7.1 at the long end would be advantageous. Maybe not a lot, but it’d definitely help smooth those backgrounds out a bit! The problem with a 500 f4 is the price!! A 500 f5.6 for around £2500 is the dream for me!


----------



## BBarn (Dec 1, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Canon really needs to lead with an APS-C R camera that lands somewhere around the specs and size of the M50.


That's the RP except for the sensor. That large RF mount drives body size, and will prevent an M50 size camera with an RF mount. The only way to get much smaller in an RF mount camera is to eliminate the EVF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> Let's face it. Canon has never shown the M line much love, and it's dying of neglect right now.


You say it's dying of neglect. Canon sees that of the top 10 best-selling ILCs domestically last month, four of them are EOS M kits (at #3, 5, 7 and 10). 

Your reality and actual reality are somewhat different, but at least you're in good company here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.


I'll be pleased if that happens, but not surprised if it doesn't. It's amusing that when someone doesn't like facts that are posted, it becomes an 'argument'.


----------



## Midge (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.


Hi- I would tend to agree with you that an R7 is the way forward for a lot of people. I have read all 8 pages of comments and its like a childs playground, full of he said,she said snipes at differing opinions. In truth there will be a market for an APS-C R based camera for a couple of simple practical reasons. Firstly, a lot of us like the format as we get a bit more reach from the magnification that APS-C provides and secondly the fact that many people have invested heavily in EF lenses over the years based around the APS-C camera ( and I dont mean EF-S lenses) for their professional needs such as wildlife and sports photography. The extra reach you get from APS-C is worth it in these cases. We are not all able just to shift all our kit over to RF based stuff !!!!
My view is that there is room for an " R7" and hopefully such a beast will appear next year.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?


The cheapest Canon APS-C camera is under $400 lens included.
The cheapest Canon full-frame camera is $899 with no lens.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

PerKr said:


> because sustaining two mounts doesn't work out well in the segment Canon/Nikon/Sony are in


Are Fuji and Panasonic in a different segment?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

entoman said:


> Because M mount never had a full system of native lenses, and probably never will.


So what?
It sells very well without that.


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> So what?
> It sells very well without that.


Precisely. Which is why I commented that there is no reason why the M and RF systems can't co-exist.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

makei said:


> EOS M series are a lot lighter. I usually take an EOS M6II with 11-22, 22, 32, (sigma 56 or 18-150) when I go out. The same camera bag can't even carry 1 FF DLSR body and 1 kit lens.


I just wish the M6II or an equivalent camera had a fully articulating screen that could fold closed and be protected in my pocket


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm also looking forward to months of lectures from self-appointed forum experts on "reach" and "equivalence."


Actually, whenever I read these "equivalence" lectures, the first thing I do is reach...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

PerKr said:


> EF-M seems to have served its purpose as a hold-over mount to test the waters.


Yes, Canon dipped a toe in the water with the M series, they only have four of the top 10 best sellers domestically with the line. Clearly it would be stupid to keep swimming in that pool…at least, in your opinion.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> What market have they ceded?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would say that Canon needs something to take on the ZV-E10.
I selfishly hope so because a Canon version would be so much better


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does that mean you believe there that if there is an APS-C EOS R then there will be RF-s lenses (or whatever functional equivalent), to achieve that smaller/lighter form factor?


I have no doubt there will be APS-C RF lenses if there are APS-C R cameras.
What I doubt is that those APS-C lenses would be on a separate mount like EF-S lenses were.
The R5 and R6 crop into APS-C when APS-C lenses are attached.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 32mp is always better than 20mp


Cool.
So you would trade me a 1DX III for an RP?


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> So what?
> It sells very well without that.


Does anyone realistically expect Canon to offer an EF/RF style catalog of glass for the M system?

Only complainers here use that tact when slamming their way through the mirrorless aps-c vs FF debate. Users (I, for one) thoroughly enjoyed the range of lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> Olicom was in that position in 1999. Increasing market share and good margins. But in a market (Token Ring networking) that folded upon them. They were basically bankrupt nine months later (sold the R&D department for one dollar).
> 
> I'm not saying that the DSLR APS-C market is falling apart, but Canon needs to keep a very fixed eye on where the emergency door is, in case that a collapse should appear to happen.


Canon has a pretty solid market share in mirrorless.
They will be fine either way


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A decade ago, the all-knowing interwebs made it clear that Canon was late to the APS-C mirrorless party, and that the original M was a lackluster entry that was barely a glorified PowerShot with a detachable lens. That story ended with Canon leading the APS-C MILC market after~5 years. I wonder where the FF MILC story will end up?
> 
> Sony started the FF MILC market just after Canon entered the APS-C MILC market that Sony had been leading. That was not a coincidence. The problem for Sony is that they’ve nowhere left to run. #vaio
> 
> ...


So now I expect a Sony medium format camera next.
Watch out Fuji!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> So now I expect a Sony medium format camera next.
> Watch out Fuji!


I wonder what that market is like now. A few years back, a Leica exec said that the entire medium format digital market (not just their share) comprised about 6000 units per year.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

BBarn said:


> An RF mount APS-C mirrorless makes sense for birders, but little else. Existing mirrorless APS-C cameras sell for only a little less than their FF counterparts, and aren't much smaller or lighter when using mounts common to FF.
> 
> Catering to the birders is fine, but there exists very little advantage to APS-C in terms of size or weight when utilizing a FF mount. After having and using an RP for the last year, I wouldn't consider going back to an APS-C. Cost and weight savings would be minimal, and it would represent a step back for most uses. Saddle an APS-C camera with a FF mount and you sacrifice most of the potential advantages of a camera with the smaller sensor.


The majority of 90D owners are not birders


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Cameras and lenses are core businesses for Canon. It is win or lose completely for them.


Canon could stop making cameras and lenses and they would still be a very profitable company


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon could stop making cameras and lenses and they would still be a very profitable company


why is that?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The fact that it sells like hotcakes.


When was the last time you bought hotcakes?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> sigh.
> Canon is predominately a imaging company including medical, scanning and printing. Cameras and lenses are core businesses for Canon. It is win or lose completely for them.


The Imaging division comprises about 18% of their business, but 1/3 of that is network cameras and other. So what we think of as Canon cameras (ILCs and P&S) accounts for about 12% of their business. Is 12% win or lose completely? Or was the sigh an expression of disappointment with your own business acumen?


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Imaging division comprises about 18% of their business, but 1/3 of that is network cameras and other. So what we think of as Canon cameras (ILCs and P&S) accounts for about 12% of their business. Is 12% win or lose completely? Or was the sigh an expression of disappointment with your own business acumen?


Fair point, I should have researched that and have now edited my previous post
Happy to learn something every day.
What % of revenue do you estimate is Sony's camera division?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

TravelerNick said:


> Are people actually buying? I personally can't think of any non photographer who would buy a standalone camera today. Maybe during the lockdown some bought cameras for the kids in place of a web camera. But virtually everybody uses their phone instead of a camera.
> 
> The shop I mentioned might be twice the size of a best buy.


The pandemic led a lot of people working from home to buy cameras for video conferencing.
Camera companies added streaming to the firmware because video capture devices were sold out.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 1, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’d love to have a go of the 100-500! Haven’t used one yet. I can certainly see your reasoning. Just think that having that 5.6 over 7.1 at the long end would be advantageous. Maybe not a lot, but it’d definitely help smooth those backgrounds out a bit! The problem with a 500 f4 is the price!! A 500 f5.6 for around £2500 is the dream for me!


It is nowhere near as good but Sigma makes an EF 500 f/4 that is much cheaper than the Canon one.
It weighs about the same which is why I still wish for a Canon RF 500 f/5.6 DO


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder what that market is like now. A few years back, a Leica exec said that the entire medium format digital market (not just their share) comprised about 6000 units per year.


Mostly purchased by Community College Visual Art and Design Associate Professors. Probably Mamiyas not Leicas, lol.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Fair point, I should have researched that.
> Happy to learn something every day.
> What % of revenue do you estimate is Sony's camera division?


By their latest financial 11.7%.
Income 15% 
Image and Sensing Solutions


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Cool.
> So you would trade me a 1DX III for an RP?


Clearly my point was tongue-in-cheek... please don't quote part of my comment to then have a go at me.
"Don't let the truth get in the way of a key marketing spec sheet number... 32mp is always better than 20mp!"


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> By their latest financial 11.7%.
> Income 15%
> Image and Sensing Solutions


I have updated my previous post. That is much higher than I expected given all the other areas that Sony have revenue from.
Does Sony they break down their sensor division separate to cameras?


----------



## kaihp (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder what that market is like now. A few years back, a Leica exec said that the entire medium format digital market (not just their share) comprised about 6000 units per year.


That might have been me claiming the 6K units/year. I was told this by a friend that worked for PhaseOne R&D at the time:





Fuji Medium Format is coming


http://petapixel.com/2016/06/30/fuji-release-affordable-mirrorless-medium-format-september-report/ Fuji created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the (FF) triple dare and going right for the (medium format) throat! - A




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

kaihp said:


> That might have been me claiming the 6K units/year. I was told this by a friend that worked for PhaseOne R&D at the time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was in an online article where the guy from Leica was quoted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I have updated my previous post. That is much higher than I expected given all the other areas that Sony have revenue from.
> Does Sony they break down their sensor division separate to cameras?


Higher than I thought, too. It’s a bit challenging with Sony because they’ve moved their cameras from one division to another a few times in recent years. Feels a little like a shell game.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Higher than I thought, too. It’s a bit challenging with Sony because they’ve moved their cameras from one division to another a few times in recent years. Feels a little like a shell game.


based on my limited business acumen, that strategy would seem like cameras don't fit well into their current business unit segments and would be relatively easy to sell off as an independent entity.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2021)

That is because Sony restructured their divisions and cameras are just a part of that division that includes all scientific and medical imaging, surveillance solutions etc etc.

The rumor at the time (maybe DPReview or Thom) was the consumer camera division was losing so much money they needed to wrap it into a division that could cover the losses. It is impossible to know how much money, if any, the camera sector, as we understand it, makes.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 1, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> A couple dozen nerds on the internet does not a market make. Canon knows far more than reading a discussion site could tell them.


Wait! We're nerds? How come nobody told me?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 1, 2021)

I don't understand why, every time APS-C R is discussed, people insist it will mean Canon must discontinue the M series.

I don't follow Canon's financials and I have zero insight into any of their internal numbers, but given the amount of time since the last update of any kind, I imagine the M series development is paid for and the production tooling is paid for. Every unit they sell at this point must be nearly pure profit, minus the recurring costs of parts and labor.

Others here have said that the M series is Canon's top selling ILC by volume, or maybe that's just in Japan. Either way, if true, it would seem foolish to discontinue it while it's still profitable, just because something newer and shinier has come along. That's camera enthusiast thinking, not smart marketing.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Dec 1, 2021)

You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.

That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.

So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.


neuroanatomist said:


> You say it's dying of neglect. Canon sees that of the top 10 best-selling ILCs domestically last month, four of them are EOS M kits (at #3, 5, 7 and 10).
> 
> Your reality and actual reality are somewhat different, but at least you're in good company here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.
> 
> That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.
> 
> So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.


Your conclusion does not fit the information you posted, which suggests that the M line is neglected but thriving. 

What makes you think the market is ‘driven by innovation and creativity’? Cameras that are years old have chart-topping sales in Japan, ostensibly a country that fosters innovation. The 250D is at #2 and #8, it’s a DSLR from 2019. The original M50 from 2018 is at #7 and #10. Seems more like an industry driven by low-cost cameras.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 2, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I have updated my previous post. That is much higher than I expected given all the other areas that Sony have revenue from.
> Does Sony they break down their sensor division separate to cameras?


I am sure they do if you want to do the research. This came off last quarters financial which was very basic and just gave sectors. I had to do the math myself.
A google search of Sony's financials will tell you more than you ever want.
In their Corporate Strategy Meeting report the talk extensively about sensors and sensor R&D, and almost nothing about cameras.
My thought is that the camera division is just a supplement to selling sensors.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 2, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.
> 
> That being said, I did acknowledge that they have been rewarded at the sales registers. And I think we can both agree that that leaves little incentive for Canon in the short term to do anything different. But with a camera and lens lineup that fundamentally hasn't changed since 2018, I am still surprised that they continue to dominate a market that is driven by innovation and creativity. How long can that last? The bottom will drop out of this market. It's not if, it's when. And Canon has shown no interest in innovating within the lineup, nor making clear pathways into another architecture without simply starting from scratch.
> 
> So yes, I stand by my original post. The M series is dying of neglect. Canon has demonstrated that it believes that the M series is a technological dead-end, even if they continue to wring profits out of it. I don't expect that to change, but I can be hopeful.


I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.

I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.

Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 2, 2021)

tataylino said:


> So, the end of eos M?


An R priced the same as an M50? I don't think so.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 2, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> By their latest financial 11.7%.
> Income 15%
> Image and Sensing Solutions


Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors

Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors
> 
> Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.


Like I said, a shell game. Makes me wonder if it’s even profitable, else why bury the results in different aggregates?

Fuji basically came out and admitted their digital cameras aren’t profitable, but they keep making them for ‘historical and societal reasons’.


----------



## takesome1 (Dec 2, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> Sony's Imaging and Sensing Solutions division doesn't make cameras. It only makes sensors. Their biggest business is probably smartphone sensors
> 
> Sony cameras are part of their Electronic Products and Solutions division. That division also includes TV, Audio and Video, Mobile Communications, and Other.


Still and Video Camera Sales is 3.7% of Sony's total sales in 2020. FY21_2Q_Supplemental.
Cameras are only mentioned once.
In other reports cameras are mentioned very little.
So is there really a point other than speculating that Canon could have crushed and pushed Sony out of business if they had released a mirrorless full frame sooner.
I wonder how many sensors Sony sells from the Imaging and Sensing Solutions to the Electronic Products and Solutions Division?
I suppose they could scrap making cameras and loose those sells.
For the Imaging and Sensing Solutions it is split 70% for phone sensors and 30% for audio-visual and industrial applications which are primarily Cameras.
Doing some simple math that would mean that about 3.5% of the total sales of the company go to camera sensors. 
It makes you wonder how they do the math, would they count sales of sensors to themselves as revenue for one sector and cost for another?

The real point is all the speculation in this forum are for the most part misinformed. A quick google search and some reading about Sony's financials will take you to their Investors Relation site which will tell you about everything if your willing to read and do a little math.

The reality is that camera sales are a very small part of their business, why they choose to make cameras may be to sell sensors to themselves. Maybe they want to take over the world camera market. But the reality is Canon is not going to crush Sony or push them out of the market unless Sony chooses to quit making cameras.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 2, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> Still and Video Camera Sales is 3.7% of Sony's total sales in 2020. FY21_2Q_Supplemental.
> Cameras are only mentioned once.
> In other reports cameras are mentioned very little.
> So is there really a point other than speculating that Canon could have crushed and pushed Sony out of business if they had released a mirrorless full frame sooner.
> ...


3.5% does seem more realistic. Intercompany eliminations are used to avoid double counting of revenue/cost
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/what-are-intercompany-eliminations.html

My original speculation was that if Canon/Nikon did enter the FF mirrorless market much earlier then perhaps Sony's camera division may have bled sufficient cash trying to get market share with new products and become untenable. Sony is big enough to wear losses if it wants to and if they see cameras as strategic to the business but each division will have their own P&L to justify their existence. Sony makes medium format sensors but don't make medium format cameras. I just noticed that Sony mobile phones are seeing a big sales increase with 2Q21 up 25% YoY. I had thought that they were dying as well even though Sony make the camera sensors.

All just speculation but at least we have learnt more about % revenue in Sony/Canon today


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.
> 
> I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.
> 
> Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"


I agree but it is still important to have marketing halo products even if they don't sell many or aren't that profitable. Partly to show innovation that hopefully will trickle down to consumer models but more about aspiration (based on my limited business acumen).

Corolla and Camry have the Supra. Even Lexus IS models aspire to LC/LS and previously to ISF/RCF/LFA models. My understanding is that the most profitable part of selling cars is adding options within model ranges including those that make them look more like the halo cars eg "M sport" accents on BMW without it being a M2/M3/M4 etc
Whether a car reaches -100km/hr in 3.9 or 3.8s is definitely showing decreasing returns to scale especially given the state of roads and the speed limits.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Dec 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.
> 
> I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.
> 
> Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"



You make a lot of valid points here sir. In my opinion, the ultra-high resolutions and burst rates on some of the top of the line cameras creates more problems than they solve, especially when it comes to file management and storage. That being said, I cannot agree with your statement regarding prime lenses. The value of prime lenses is simple and obvious in that they may offer superior optics, and a wider aperture at a greatly reduced price in comparison to a zoom lens. As an example, one of the lenses I shoot with is a ef 200mm f/2.8L USM II that I purchased for around $600. Sure, it's possible that I could have purchased a used ef 70-200 III for an extra thousand, or lost a ton of light with a ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS II for a similar price, but the prime provided the additional reach I needed, without compromising my results, while also being budget friendly.

Honestly, I feel that zoom lenses hamper my creativity, and the only reason I even own one is for weather sealing so I can shoot in adverse weather conditions in the snow, rain or at the beach without running into the need to change lenses.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Dec 2, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.
> 
> I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.
> 
> Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"


This might not be what many photography enthusiasts want to hear, but I suspect what Czardoom has stated above is the truth.

It looks like most camera sales are at the lower end of the market. Entry level DSLRs and mirrorless cameras which are popular with beginners, social media fans and vloggers looking for something better than smartphones for photos and video.

A whole lot more people in the past would have simply bought cheap point-and-shoot cameras, which have been displaced to a greater extent by smartphone cameras. That's most likely the explanation for the 90% reduction or whatever the figure is in the camera market.

Professionals are like tradesmen, they _usually _use the tools of their trade for quite a while, buy new tools when they need them, and upgrade if there is an obvious cost-benefit advantage to their business.

The internet influencers, vloggers and forums may give a false impression of who is driving the market. Passion doesn't equate to actual market numbers necessarily. The enthusiasts worldwide buy expensive gear often, seeking the latest and greatest, but they're a subset of the photography world, which is a subset of the whole population.

From Hobbies & interests in the United States 2021 | Statista - https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997050/hobbies-and-interests-in-the-us it appears that 20% of people surveyed in the US identified photography as their hobby, and it ranks 13th, below gardening, which is 11th in the list.

What percentage of this 20% are using smartphones, entry-level cameras, mid-tier prosumer gear or top-tier professional gear?
Of the portion using mid-tier prosumer gear or top-tier professional gear, what percentage are using Sony, Nikon or Canon?
If we slice the pie each time, to an ever thinner slice, that last Canon slice represents the group that we're a smaller subset of, because not all (probably very few) pro photogs using Canon gear would be on internet forums. If we used Set Theory to represent this as a Venn diagram, I suspect that Canon users across all forums collectively wouldn't represent a large percentage of the market.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 2, 2021)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.


In my book, that counts as "serving the target audience".

I might be a little biased, though, because I am not a part of the target audience for the M series and, naturally, would prefer Canon to spend its R&D money on something more useful to me.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2021)

This is a niche forum for those mainly interested in high level camera gear of the Canon variety and what it can do. So, don't complain if that is what is discussed here and interests most. Even if Canon isn't interested, people posting here are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> This is a niche forum for those mainly interested in high level camera gear of the Canon variety and what it can do. So, don't complain if that is what is discussed here and interests most. Even if Canon isn't interested, people posting here are.


The complaint is that some people here have deluded themselves into believing they represent the beating heart of the camera industry.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The complaint is that some people here have deluded themselves into believing they represent the beating heart of the camera industry.


While that may be the case, I am sure the bodies are only a tiny profit for Canon. The lenses and accessories I would guess are where the lions share of profit is. So again as a guess it is the mid-high end buyers that will generate the profit. An R body, spare batteries, EF adapter and a load of RF lenses is what many new R system users will buy.


----------



## John Wilde (Dec 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Like I said, a shell game. Makes me wonder if it’s even profitable, else why bury the results in different aggregates?
> 
> Fuji basically came out and admitted their digital cameras aren’t profitable, but they keep making them for ‘historical and societal reasons’.


In their financial documents, Canon and Nikon report and forecast unit sales of their interchangeable-lens cameras. Sony never does.

Sony financial documents include a chart with the title "Unit Sales of Key Products". Those products are PlayStation4, PlayStation5, and TVs. Cameras aren't important enough to be considered a key product.


----------



## wyotex43n (Dec 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.


I too wonder what lens would serve me better. I am shooting my ef 100-400 on the R5. I sometimes put the 1.4 extender on and other than driving the iso and noise up I am happy with the results. The RF 100-500 would be a cleaner solution. If not that what? The big whites are out of my price range. What about a 500 DO with a built in 1.4 extender? Or 200-600 f5.6. Price would probably still be an issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> While that may be the case, I am sure the bodies are only a tiny profit for Canon. The lenses and accessories I would guess are where the lions share of profit is. So again as a guess it is the mid-high end buyers that will generate the profit. An R body, spare batteries, EF adapter and a load of RF lenses is what many new R system users will buy.


Don't confuse margin with total profit. If you'd prefer selling 100,000 widgets with a $5 margin over selling a million widgets with a $1 margin, your company will soon be out of business.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 2, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> I too wonder what lens would serve me better. I am shooting my ef 100-400 on the R5. I sometimes put the 1.4 extender on and other than driving the iso and noise up I am happy with the results. The RF 100-500 would be a cleaner solution. If not that what? The big whites are out of my price range. What about a 500 DO with a built in 1.4 extender? Or 200-600 f5.6. Price would probably still be an issue.


It depends how you shoot. If you are strong and not using the lens so much on hikes, then a 200-600 f/5.6 could be good, if it didn't break the bank. If you are the average person who wants a very high quality zoom and can go on a hike, then the RF 100-500 won't break your back. A 500/5.6 DO with a built in TC would be interesting, and you could use it with an external TC, and probably be very pricey.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 2, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don't confuse margin with total profit. If you'd prefer selling 100,000 widgets with a $5 margin over selling a million widgets with a $1 margin, your company will soon be out of business.


The point is, all the small accessories add up quickly. Many who buy bottom end camers get it as a kit and often buy no more. As we go u- the chain the number off accessories increases. It would be very interesting to see some stats, but we probably never will.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> The point is, all the small accessories add up quickly. Many who buy bottom end camers get it as a kit and often buy no more. As we go u- the chain the number off accessories increases. It would be very interesting to see some stats, but we probably never will.


One data point to consider is that ~90% of ILCs produced are APS-C (as of about a year ago, maybe that’s changed a bit). I agree that most entry level buyers get the camera and 1-2 kit lenses and that’s it (until the camera breaks, then if they buy another it’s the current entry level model). The point is, those buyers far outnumber us CR members who often have a few bodies, several lenses and a range of other accessories.

The pyramid has a very wide base. But, that base is being eroded by smartphones. It makes sense for Canon to try and push people up-market into higher margin products. To me, that’s another argument against an APS-C RF mount camera and a (small) range of cheaper lenses to go with it. Better to launch an $800 FF EOS R, which paired with a 24-105 non-L would only be $100 more than the top-end M body + lens, and get more people into the higher-margin FF ecosystem.

That’s one area where Sony was smart (or lucky to be driven there by the 800-lb Canon gorilla entering the APS-C MILC room) – an emphasis on higher margin products more insulated from the smartphone competition.


----------



## mangobutter (Dec 2, 2021)

It's extremely clear that if Canon intends to be the mirrorless leader, they absolutely need a cropped RF-mount. (OG EF-M user here since launch day of the original M) Fun system, but it was really a half-assed experiment were Canon was testing the waters more or less when mirrorless crop was all the rage. It's not a big deal to scrap EF-M since there's not that many lenses out for it. Besides Nikon scrapped a crop system before too so it should seem not out of the realm of possibility. Sony also scrapped its full frame SLR mount too. Sometimes you try something and it's not the right direction to go in.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 2, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> When was the last time you bought hotcakes?


Longer ago than I bought EF-M.

So I'll modify my statement: The fact that it sells _better than_ hotcakes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> It's extremely clear that if Canon intends to be the mirrorless leader, they absolutely need a cropped RF-mount.


Why is that, exactly? Maybe all they have to do is wait. In 2020, Canon had 30% of the MILC market and Sony had 35%. Compared to 2019, Canon gained 6% and Sony lost 7%, i.e. Canon gained 13% on Sony. They need less than half that gain in 2021 to become the MILC market leader. Given that Canon has close to 50% of the total ILC market, double Sony’s , it’s actually quite possible that Canon is already the mirrorless leader, we just don’t know it yet. 



mangobutter said:


> OG EF-M user here since launch day of the original M) Fun system, but it was really a half-assed experiment were Canon was testing the waters more or less when mirrorless crop was all the rage.


APS-C is ~90% of the ILC market. Mirrorless is ~60% of the ILC market. Mirrorless crop is still ‘all the rage’ as far as people actually buying cameras, and that’s not likely to change.




mangobutter said:


> It's not a big deal to scrap EF-M since there's not that many lenses out for it.
> Besides Nikon scrapped a crop system before too so it should seem not out of the realm of possibility. Sony also scrapped its full frame SLR mount too. Sometimes you try something and it's not the right direction to go in.


How many times do I have to point out that four of the top 10 best selling camera kits in Japan right now are EOS M systems? Nikon and Sony scrapped those mounts because the cameras were not selling well.

But heck, why should you allow actual evidence to influence your opinion? Have you considered applying for CEO of Canon? I’m sure they’d love someone as smart as you to run the company into the ground for them.


----------



## rpg51 (Dec 2, 2021)

I'll just say that Canon has taken a decent bite out of my wallet in the last few months. In the interest of preparing for retirement I decided to get back in the amateur photography game after about 25 or more years away from it. So, I in the last few months I acquired:

R6
15-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
100-500 RF

Also, RF 70-200 2.8 is calling out to me really loudly. I don't want to list the prices because I am in denial about it. 

Of course, i know others have spent a lot more than I have. But, is there enough volume?

Also, it seems to me that each manufacturer needs to have a decent $500 camera with a decent kit lens to make the payroll and then all this fancy stuff to make a little profit and for marketing. It reminds me a bit of the discussions on the Honda S-2000 forum, (my other favorite and expensive toy). Sadly, if these cameras go the way of the S-2000 we better enjoy these cameras while we can. They may not be around one day.


----------



## tataylino (Dec 2, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> An R priced the same as an M50? I don't think so.


They can have the "M50" with RF mount...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2021)

rpg51 said:


> I'll just say that Canon has taken a decent bite out of my wallet in the last few months.


Me, too. Switching many lenses to RF for use on the R3, so I recently purchased:

RF 14-35/4L IS
RF 28-70/2L
RF 70-200/2.8 IS
RF 100-500/4.5-7.1L IS


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 2, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> You make a lot of valid points here sir. In my opinion, the ultra-high resolutions and burst rates on some of the top of the line cameras creates more problems than they solve, especially when it comes to file management and storage. That being said, I cannot agree with your statement regarding prime lenses. The value of prime lenses is simple and obvious in that they may offer superior optics, and a wider aperture at a greatly reduced price in comparison to a zoom lens. As an example, one of the lenses I shoot with is a ef 200mm f/2.8L USM II that I purchased for around $600. Sure, it's possible that I could have purchased a used ef 70-200 III for an extra thousand, or lost a ton of light with a ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS II for a similar price, but the prime provided the additional reach I needed, without compromising my results, while also being budget friendly.
> 
> Honestly, I feel that zoom lenses hamper my creativity, and the only reason I even own one is for weather sealing so I can shoot in adverse weather conditions in the snow, rain or at the beach without running into the need to change lenses.


I don't recall saying that there was no value to prime lenses. I only said I have no interest in them. But my point is that those interested in and buying prime lenses - or even f/2.8 zooms - is a minority of camera buyers - and almost certainly a small minority of M users and low-end DSLR users. And for me personally, I have no interest in primes for what I shoot - that doesn't mean others won't have - or even prefer- primes for the benefits they provide. 

I think one obvious point about the target market for M buyers and APS-C DSLR buyers is that the kit lenses are always zooms. That target market wants 2 or 3 lenses maximum and still wants to cover the entire focal range they need. So zooms are far more convenient in that regard, which is why, for the majority of camera buyers, I believe convenience is more important than innovation and creativity, which was the point in the post I was commenting on.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 2, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> .... It's not a big deal to scrap EF-M since there's not that many lenses out for it.


Somehow I think Canon will be looking at sales numbers, not number of lenses.


----------



## SnowMiku (Dec 3, 2021)

Only time will tell the future of EF-M, the system will be lighter and smaller then an APS-C RF and lens. As long as EF-M is making a good profit I don't see a reason why they would remove it. But if the APS-C RF ends up eating into the EF-M profits too much then I can see Canon phasing it out. I think they will just see how both systems go and take it from there.


----------



## entoman (Dec 3, 2021)

tataylino said:


> They can have the "M50" with RF mount...


The size of RF cameras can be reduced, e.g. by having a body without an EVF or a grip, but the diameter of the RF mount is greater than that of the M, and that will dictate the minimum size of the bodies.

Also, if Canon were to produce a very small RF body, they'd also have to produce a set of small lenses to go with it. It just makes more sense for Canon to keep the M series, especially as the development costs have almost certainly already been fully recouped, and they can just reap the profits from what remains a very popular line of products.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 3, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> Only time will tell the future of EF-M, the system will be lighter and smaller then an APS-C RF and lens. As long as EF-M is making a good profit I don't see a reason why they would remove it. But if the APS-C RF ends up eating into the EF-M profits too much then I can see Canon phasing it out. I think they will just see how both systems go and take it from there.


Here in the UK I have only ever seen two people using the M system. When I chatted to my local dealer about it he said he doesn’t even stock them as they just don’t sell. Sounds like Japan and the US are the main markets for the system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Here in the UK I have only ever seen two people using the M system. When I chatted to my local dealer about it he said he doesn’t even stock them as they just don’t sell. Sounds like Japan and the US are the main markets for the system.


That's interesting, because on amazon.co.uk, the M200 is the #1 bestselling MILC and the M50 II is the #2 bestselling DSLR (no idea why they categorize it as one). 

Yet another example of people on this forum believing that their personal opinions and observations are somehow representative of the broader market.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's interesting, because on amazon.co.uk, the M200 is the #1 bestselling MILC and the M50 II is the #2 bestselling DSLR (no idea why they categorize it as one).
> 
> Yet another example of people on this forum believing that their personal opinions and observations are somehow representative of the broader market.


If you don't believe Neuro:


----------



## drhuffman87 (Dec 3, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I don't recall saying that there was no value to prime lenses. I only said I have no interest in them. But my point is that those interested in and buying prime lenses - or even f/2.8 zooms - is a minority of camera buyers - and almost certainly a small minority of M users and low-end DSLR users. And for me personally, I have no interest in primes for what I shoot - that doesn't mean others won't have - or even prefer- primes for the benefits they provide.
> 
> I think one obvious point about the target market for M buyers and APS-C DSLR buyers is that the kit lenses are always zooms. That target market wants 2 or 3 lenses maximum and still wants to cover the entire focal range they need. So zooms are far more convenient in that regard, which is why, for the majority of camera buyers, I believe convenience is more important than innovation and creativity, which was the point in the post I was commenting on.


It's true that you never mentioned there is no value in primes. That being said, the first thing I did when purchasing a rebel once upon a time, was pick up a nifty fifty for $125. A prime allowed me to shoot at f/1.8, while the bundled zoom would be at f/5.6 at the same focal length. In this day and age, the "convenience" of f/5.6 will give you the same images as a camera phone, while f/1.8 will provide a value that stands apart from the average joe. The entire reason of purchasing a stand-alone camera, rather that a $1000 smartphone, is to get images that someone without a camera would be incapable of capturing.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 3, 2021)

I have successfully avoided visiting this thread until now--typically, the way that some (but not all) of the notions expressed on CR about the M remind me of the current debates here in America about vaccines (or ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine/evolution/abortion/immigration/gun control/gay marriage/transsexuals/religion/health care).

I've made my views on this general topic (i.e. the EF-M format) very clear...for years and years on this very board: to sum up--Canon would be foolish to cede the small-and-light, high-quality ILC market to Nikon and Sony. We have several M-format cameras in our family...we have images acquired using Canon's M that demanded the size, weight, volume (and stealthiness?!) of an M. Can you say Rolling Stones concert?

But here's why I've given in...and now posting this here...on my favorite Canon site.

In six days (weather and circumstances permitting), our family is meeting up in the Disney/Orlando area for two nights...and then Cocoa Beach FL for a week.

We've been at this for over thirty years (probably half as long as some who post here!).

The goal of this trip, for the entire family?

Vacation fun.

For me (but not the others), vacation fun includes photography--lots of photography (we've over 31K photos organized via jAlbum and posted online [password-protected])...and it is kind of neat to see loved ones who pooh-pooh the process of picture-taking...smile when they see the images weeks, months, years and now decades later. They are delighted I was persistent.

For everything from various -scapes (including land and ocean) and eclipses (solar and lunar), fireworks, Space Shuttle and SpaceX launches...to literally dozens of attractions at Walt Disney World, Universal Studios and Sea World, and spring training baseball as well as golf tournaments, Canon's M-format bodies and lenses have performed admirably during our trips to Florida. In fact most (but not all) of these images are indistinguishable from those acquired using a 5DMkIII and L-series lenses--especially with the M6MkII, a small, lightweight and UNOBSTRUSIVE piece of electronics that is a joy to use (but still not perfect).

In the next couple of days, I'll be deciding what to pack in my carry-on bag, a bag specifically designed to fit underneath a typical airline seat.

I'll be sure to pack:

*M6MkII (+charger and extra battery) & EVF-DC1 viewfinder
*EF-M 11-22 IS and 18-150 IS lenses
*270 EX-II flash
*Panasonic AA recharger
*(very smallish) lightweight (and rather flimsy) telescopic tripod designed for a small camcorder (but ideal for an M body mated to any M lens)
*Dell XPS 13 9380, charger and mouse
*Instand laptop stand
*power strip/surge protector

=====

I'm likely to pack:

M6 (with the EF-M 22 attached to it)
EF/EF-M adapter
EF 70-300 IS II; EF 35 f2 IS lenses

=====

All of these items, packed more-or-less individually inside separate padded bags, easily fit inside of an American Tourister piece of luggage that slides nicely under the Southwest Airlines seat in front of me.

Some (but not all) of this would not be possible with my EF (and, over the next several months, R) gear.

=====

And finally...(nearly) always in my pocket:

*iPhone 12 Pro Max

=====

Repeating myself:

*Canon would be foolish to cede the small, high-quality market to Nikon and Sony. And there is room for both the R and M formats.*

I keep reading that the M series does well in many parts of Asia. Maybe Canon will design and sell the M6MkIII in Japan.

Where and when do I sign up for that? It's been a bit over two years, I think, since the release of the M6MkII.

...it would not be my first purchase of an M (specifically, the M2) from Japan.

Thanks for reading.


EDIT: apparently the M200 (which I've considered purchasing...talk about slim and light) is the #1 mirrorless seller in the UK on amazon.

Thanks AlanF (two posts previous to this one...posted while I was constructing this mess)--just look at that list! The M200 is the only Canon entry...


----------



## dcm (Dec 3, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Here in the UK I have only ever seen two people using the M system. When I chatted to my local dealer about it he said he doesn’t even stock them as they just don’t sell. Sounds like Japan and the US are the main markets for the system.



Assuming your local dealer is a camera store, I'm not surprised people don't buy M's there. That's not where the target market for the M shops for a camera. They shop on Amazon and at big box retailers like Best Buy. Part of knowing your customer is knowing where they shop.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 3, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's interesting, because on amazon.co.uk, the M200 is the #1 bestselling MILC and the M50 II is the #2 bestselling DSLR (no idea why they categorize it as one).
> 
> Yet another example of people on this forum believing that their personal opinions and observations are somehow representative of the broader market.


I’m not suggesting I know better, just going from my observations out and about as well as the information from my local camera shop. There was also a story from Canon a couple of years back suggesting the M system was not doing well in Europe but very well in the US and Japan.

I do think it is an interesting system but sadly lacking in a few areas.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 3, 2021)

dcm said:


> Assuming your local dealer is a camera store, I'm not surprised people don't buy M's there. That's not where the target market for the M shops for a camera. They shop on Amazon and at big box retailers like Best Buy. Part of knowing your customer is knowing where they shop.


We all know the high street is *******. Outside the likes of Wex, camera shops are closing rapidly here. Shame as I used to enjoy seeing kit in person before buying.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> We all know the high street is *******. Outside the likes of Wex, camera shops are closing rapidly here. Shame as I used to enjoy seeing kit in person before buying.


Drive or cycle north to Cambridge. We have a proper camera shop Campkins, and the John Lewis departmental store has a decent photographic section with lots of the cheaper range as well as mid range.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 3, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Drive or cycle north to Cambridge. We have a proper camera shop Campkins, and the John Lewis departmental store has a decent photographic section with lots of the cheaper range as well as mid range.


Good to hear. St Albans had three at on point, now just the one and it is awful. Watford had 4, but again down to one, plus John Lewis has closed there. High Wycombe had 4, now just one. MK has a decent size Wex, which is nice.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 3, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Drive or cycle north to Cambridge. We have a proper camera shop Campkins, and the John Lewis departmental store has a decent photographic section with lots of the cheaper range as well as mid range.


...oldest daughter studied (and worked) at Oxford Univ. A few years ago I think we visited T4 in Witney (on our way to the Cotswolds?):






T4 Cameras







www.t4cameras.co.uk





...fair selection of R and M gear now (!); nice shop.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 3, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> It's true that you never mentioned there is no value in primes. That being said, the first thing I did when purchasing a rebel once upon a time, was pick up a nifty fifty for $125. A prime allowed me to shoot at f/1.8, while the bundled zoom would be at f/5.6 at the same focal length. In this day and age, the "convenience" of f/5.6 will give you the same images as a camera phone, while f/1.8 will provide a value that stands apart from the average joe. The entire reason of purchasing a stand-alone camera, rather that a $1000 smartphone, is to get images that someone without a camera would be incapable of capturing.


If you believe that the ability to have a very narrow DOF is the only thing that separates an ILC camera as opposed to a smartphone, well, how can one argue with such a narrow point of view. If you think that a photographer needs primes to separate them from your "average joe", well, I have no primes and a large percentage of my photos are ones that a smartphone is incapable of capturing.

Again, the discussion I was commenting on is not about what I like or what you like, the point being discussed is what is the prevailing attitude of most camera buyers. Do they want innovation or low price and more convenience. I only brought up lenses in my original post as so many folks consider the M system dead due to the small numbre of lenses. You are obviously not in the target market for the M system. Nor am I anymore. That's not the point.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's interesting, because on amazon.co.uk, the M200 is the #1 bestselling MILC and the M50 II is the #2 bestselling DSLR (no idea why they categorize it as one).
> 
> Yet another example of people on this forum believing that their personal opinions and observations are somehow representative of the broader market.


So people buy them from Amazon because the local dealers don’t stock them, or the dealers don’t stock them because no one buys them locally, just from Amazon? Chicken or egg?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2021)

stevelee said:


> So people buy them from Amazon because the local dealers don’t stock them, or the dealers don’t stock them because no one buys them locally, just from Amazon? Chicken or egg?


Although that is a relevant question for the dealers and for Amazon, it’s irrelevant here. The point is, a lot EOS M-series cameras are selling in the UK, so when someone claims they aren’t selling well there because that person has only seen a couple of them ‘in the wild’ and their local shoppe doesn’t carry them, their claim is refuted by the facts.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 4, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Here in the UK I have only ever seen two people using the M system.


You've seen 50% more now


----------



## Deleted (Dec 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Although that is a relevant question for the dealers and for Amazon, it’s irrelevant here. The point is, a lot EOS M-series cameras are selling in the UK, so when someone claims they aren’t selling well there because that person has only seen a couple of them ‘in the wild’ and their local shoppe doesn’t carry them, their claim is refuted by the facts.


Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.

I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 4, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You've seen 50% more now
> View attachment 201511


Cool stuff. That is a fine shot too. I know the M system is popular amongst vloggers too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Here in the UK I have only ever seen two people using the M system. When I chatted to my local dealer about it he said he doesn’t even stock them as they just don’t sell. *Sounds like Japan and the US are the main markets for the system.*





Distinctly Average said:


> Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.



So when you said you’ve only seen a couple of them in the UK and that it sounds like the US and Japan are the main markets for the M system, you _weren’t_ implying that the UK is not a main market for it? Oh, ok then.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So when you said you’ve only seen a couple of them in the UK and that it sounds like the US and Japan are the main markets for the M system, you _weren’t_ implying that the UK is not a main market for it? Oh, ok then.


No, I wasn’t. Read into it what you will. In the past it has been stated that the strong market for the M system has been Japan and the US and less so in Europe. None of us have sales figures so we will never know. I am not attacking the system at all, which seems to be what you feel. These days we are blessed with a lot of choice, possibly too much for some. We have superb cameras from all brands with the main differences being ergonomics and lens availability. I think it is a great time to be a photographer.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Although that is a relevant question for the dealers and for Amazon, it’s irrelevant here. The point is, a lot EOS M-series cameras are selling in the UK, so when someone claims they aren’t selling well there because that person has only seen a couple of them ‘in the wild’ and their local shoppe doesn’t carry them, their claim is refuted by the facts.


Or at least more significant anecdotal data.

All the sports photographers I know shoot Nikons, BTW.


----------



## slclick (Dec 4, 2021)

I have a request. 

Can we have a few more people chiming in as to what they see other photographers using which they initially state as a representation in a regions sales and usage but then when called upon their statement, argue they were taken out of context and restate it in a lengthier way? Neuro needs more busy work.

Thanks


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2021)

slclick said:


> I have a request.
> 
> Can we have a few more people chiming in as to what they see other photographers using which they initially state as a representation in a regions sales and usage but then when called upon their statement, argue they were taken out of context and restate it in a lengthier way? Neuro needs more busy work.
> 
> Thanks


It’s funny how distorted an environment we can actually be in. I have been to one local location and seen half a dozen EF 400 DO II’s, and another (not local) where I have seen over ten EF 200 1.8 and f2’s being used at the same time.

Just goes to show how irrelevant and unrepresentative a single data point could be.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It’s funny how distorted an environment we can actually be in. I have been to one local location and seen half a dozen EF 400 DO II’s, and another (not local) where I have seen over ten EF 200 1.8 and f2’s being used at the same time.
> 
> Just goes to show how irrelevant and unrepresentative a single data point could be.


It also depends on the type of tog. I mainly run around the country shooting wildlife. So the groups I see most often are similar. Many shoot high end kit from all brands. The last few years there has been a bit of a move amongst the older generations towards m4/3 as some begin to struggle with big kit. That style seems to have become quite popular. It is also why many like APS-C.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 5, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have successfully avoided visiting this thread until now--typically, the way that some (but not all) of the notions expressed on CR about the M remind me of the current debates here in America about vaccines (or ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine/evolution/abortion/immigration/gun control/gay marriage/transsexuals/religion/health care).
> 
> I've made my views on this general topic (i.e. the EF-M format) very clear...for years and years on this very board: to sum up--Canon would be foolish to cede the small-and-light, high-quality ILC market to Nikon and Sony. We have several M-format cameras in our family...we have images acquired using Canon's M that demanded the size, weight, volume (and stealthiness?!) of an M. Can you say Rolling Stones concert?
> 
> ...


I’ll be in Cocoa Beach tomorrow. It’s a small world and there most certainly is still a place for small cameras, one only has to look at actual sales data to realize that!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> based on my limited business acumen, that strategy would seem like cameras don't fit well into their current business unit segments and would be relatively easy to sell off as an independent entity.


Sony's business is all over the place.
On the other hand, they are insisting on people use the Alpha name.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

takesome1 said:


> My thought is that the camera division is just a supplement to selling sensors.


Sony prices their cameras too aggressively if that is what they want to accomplish.
They are out-competing their sensor customers.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> As an example, one of the lenses I shoot with is a ef 200mm f/2.8L USM II that I purchased for around $600.


I have a 120-300 f/2.8 that weighs over 8 pounds.
Using primes to cover that range would save me a lot of weight.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> This might not be what many photography enthusiasts want to hear, but I suspect what Czardoom has stated above is the truth.
> 
> It looks like most camera sales are at the lower end of the market. Entry level DSLRs and mirrorless cameras which are popular with beginners, social media fans and vloggers looking for something better than smartphones for photos and video.
> 
> ...


The high end of the market is still important.
Sony and Canon make a lot of money selling lenses.
The people hire up the market spend more money on lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> I too wonder what lens would serve me better. I am shooting my ef 100-400 on the R5. I sometimes put the 1.4 extender on and other than driving the iso and noise up I am happy with the results. The RF 100-500 would be a cleaner solution. If not that what? The big whites are out of my price range. What about a 500 DO with a built in 1.4 extender? Or 200-600 f5.6. Price would probably still be an issue.


I just ordered a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary from Adorama since the sale price is not much more than the RF 600 f/11.
I still plan to get an RF 800 f/11 with a 2x teleconverter.
Sigma makes a 500 f/4 for less than the price of the Canon 400 f/4 DO but it weighs as much as the Canon 600 f/4.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you don't believe Neuro:
> 
> View attachment 201500


Lumix does not sell nearly that well in the USA


----------



## slclick (Dec 5, 2021)

Unless you're stil churning out various repies, pls share us the Lumix USA numbers. I have seen a lot. Although, I will be the first to say what I've seen doesn't amount to squat in regards to sales figures.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 5, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's interesting, because on amazon.co.uk, the M200 is the #1 bestselling MILC and the M50 II is the #2 bestselling DSLR (no idea why they categorize it as one).


Probably because the M50ii has a built-in EVF so it “looks” like a DSLR to Amazon’s classification algorithm.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Dec 6, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The high end of the market is still important.
> Sony and Canon make a lot of money selling lenses.
> The people hire up the market spend more money on lenses.


Yes, it sure is, it's where the camera companies can showcase their innovation, the latest and greatest, what they're really capable of doing. This has great marketing value in terms of promoting the brand. This market is probably low sales volume, high margin, wheras the bulk of their business comes from the high sales volume lower margin entry level products, which probably subsidise the R&D for the development of the high end products.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 6, 2021)

slclick said:


> Unless you're stil churning out various repies, pls share us the Lumix USA numbers. I have seen a lot. Although, I will be the first to say what I've seen doesn't amount to squat in regards to sales figures.


I am not on a device that can produce a screen capture that large but you are free to check yourself.





Amazon Best Sellers: Best Mirrorless Cameras


Discover the best Mirrorless Cameras in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Electronics Best Sellers.



www.amazon.com




I do not want to give the impression that I have access to overall sales figures.
I was just referring to an Amazon to Amazon comparison country to country.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Yes, it sure is, it's where the camera companies can showcase their innovation, the latest and greatest, what they're really capable of doing. This has great marketing value in terms of promoting the brand. This market is probably low sales volume, high margin, wheras the bulk of their business comes from the high sales volume lower margin entry level products, which probably subsidise the R&D for the development of the high end products.


That thinking is behind the times I’m afraid. With the low end market now replaced by smart phones, all the camera companies are competing for the enthusiast market, which is where the money is these days. Enthusiasts have disposable income and aren’t constrained by budget. It’s not a showcase it’s the bread and butter today.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That thinking is behind the times I’m afraid. With the low end market now replaced by smart phones, all the camera companies are competing for the enthusiast market, which is where the money is these days. Enthusiasts have disposable income and aren’t constrained by budget. It’s not a showcase it’s the bread and butter today.


Not quite yet, whilst the move is in that direction sales figures do not yet support that. There are still pretty voluminous DSLR Rebel kit and EOS M kit markets out there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> That thinking is behind the times I’m afraid. With the low end market now replaced by smart phones, all the camera companies are competing for the enthusiast market, which is where the money is these days. Enthusiasts have disposable income and aren’t constrained by budget. It’s not a showcase it’s the bread and butter today.


The fact that something is repeated frequently on Internet forums does not make it true.

Consider:

In 2019 and 2020, FF cameras comprised 10-12% of the ILC market.
Canon has approximately 50% market share, Sony is second with not quite 25% but Sony sells more full frame mirrorless cameras (at least for now). Canon must be selling a lot more of something.
About 40% of ILCs produced are DSLRs. Sony doesn’t make any, and Nikon does but they are a distant third in market share. Canon must be selling a lot of DSLRs.
Of the top 10 best selling cameras in Japan, almost all are generally APS-C, and the Canon cameras that are perennially on that list are variants of the EOS M and xxxD DSLRs – i.e., the low cost members of the family.
What are the expensive crop cameras being purchased by all of these wealthy enthusiasts? I’m sure the high end market is profitable, with nice fat margins.

But as far as volume, the facts support entry-level APS-C cameras as the dominant segment. As we all know, some people refuse to let their opinions be changed by something as prosaic as facts.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not quite yet, whilst the move is in that direction sales figures do not yet support that. There are still pretty voluminous DSLR Rebel kit and EOS M kit markets out there.


True, by volume Canon is content to continue to churn out low cost Rebels and M bodies, but I was responding to the claim that the high end market is primarily a marketing showcase, if you look at where the innovation and emphasis is these days, it’s clear that all the companies are focused on the enthusiast market.
If you want to know what a company’s priorities are look at where the investment is and clearly Canon’s investment is in the lucrative enthusiast market. 
But it’s not just Canon. Across almost all of the retail sector it’s the higher end products that are booming. Those products are less sensitive to economic downturns and have higher margins. You can’t just look at sales volume you have to consider margins as well.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that something is repeated frequently on Internet forums does not make it true.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> ...


Sometimes you would be better served by actually reading what people write instead of just knee jerk attacks. Certainly you can’t really believe that Canon thinks the dying low end market is the future.
Everthing Canon has done in the past several years indicates they see the enthusiast market as the future (At least until that market ages out in five to 10 years)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Sometimes you would be better served by actually reading what people write instead of just knee jerk attacks. Certainly you can’t really believe that Canon thinks the dying low end market is the future.
> Everthing Canon has done in the past several years indicates they see the enthusiast market as the future (At least until that market ages out in five to 10 years)


Sometimes you would be better served by considering your words more carefully before posting instead of just knee-jerk defensiveness.

I read what you wrote carefully, as I try to do with everything I read. Your original post was very much in the present tense. You stated, “With the low end market now replaced by smart phones…,” and that the wealthy enthusiast market segment is “Where the money is these days,” and, “It’s the bread and butter today.” The facts show those claims to be bogus. 

So now you’re trying to reframe your post in the future tense, “…see the enthusiast market as the future.” A standard move-the-goalposts ploy that’s typically used by those who are too weak or insecure to simply admit they are wrong. Sad, but regrettably common.

Obviously Canon is considering the future. But @LogicExtremist stated the bulk of Canon’s ILC sales come from high volume, lower margin entry level gear. The facts support that assertion. You disagreed with that assertion, and you were wrong.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 7, 2021)

It would be reasonable to expect research and cutting edge features to be geared toward the enthusiast market. It would also seem reasonable to think that Rebel and M buyers are not salivating over those features, and are happy to get solid, mature designs that do what they want to do. Canon presumably doesn’t need to do a lot of R&D for them, and so can make good money selling at prices that are good deals for what you get.

A friend was here on Saturday, and we got to talking about photography (OK, mostly me talking about photography, I admit). I used to have an S95 for a travel camera, and then I got an S120. When I later got the G7X II, I kept the S120 as a backup, and gave him the S95 (or was it a 90?). Then in 2019, I got the G5X II, gave him the S120, and the G7X II got thrown into my travel bag as backup. I accidentally used it the day I landed in Rome, since they look so much alike.

So my friend said Saturday that he occasionally uses an S camera when he heads out to make pictures, but usually doesn’t bother to take it along, since his iPhone makes perfectly good pictures, and is always with him. So that is my anecdotal observation for the day. Even owning better, or at least more flexible cameras, he doesn’t have much occasion to use them. It seems reasonable to think that lots of people would think the same way. I don’t anticipate Canon (or anybody else) coming out with something pocketable that will improve enough on the G5X II for me to replace it (and pass the G7X II along to a friend). My experience of taking over 3,000 pictures on that last Europe trip convinced me that I really don’t need to get an ILC for that sort of travel. I looked at the M50 briefly when I decided to go with another G instead.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sometimes you would be better served by considering your words more carefully before posting instead of just knee-jerk defensiveness.
> 
> I read what you wrote carefully, as I try to do with everything I read. Your original post was very much in the present tense. You stated, “With the low end market now replaced by smart phones…,” and that the wealthy enthusiast market segment is “Where the money is these days,” and, “It’s the bread and butter today.” The facts show those claims to be bogus.
> 
> ...


So conflicted, the two usually cooler prevailing heads on CR at at odds!


----------



## Kit. (Dec 7, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Yes, it sure is, it's where the camera companies can showcase their innovation, the latest and greatest, what they're really capable of doing. This has great marketing value in terms of promoting the brand.


It could be the other way around: the low-margin entry-level products are barely profitable, but have great marketing value in terms of forming the brand loyalty, not only for cameras, but also toward Canon's printers/MFUs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2021)

Kit. said:


> It could be the other way around: the low-margin entry-level products are barely profitable, but have great marketing value in terms of forming the brand loyalty, not only for cameras, but also toward Canon's printers/MFUs.


I don’t really get the brand loyalty thing. Companies don’t care personally about people (neither customers nor employees), why do they deserve loyalty? I certainly get brand lock-in – I have 24 Canon lenses (and one Rokinon), switching brands and replicating my kit would be a very expensive proposition. Even with less kit, UI is important.

I can also see brand inertia due to familiarity. I hope that’s mostly what people mean by brand loyalty.

I have had multifunction printers from Epson, Xerox and HP. I have Nikon and Canon binoculars, and I bought Panasonic P&S cameras for my younger kids (my older one uses my old M2).


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get the brand loyalty thing. Companies don’t care personally about people (neither customers nor employees), why do they deserve loyalty? I certainly get brand lock-in – I have 24 Canon lenses (and one Rokinon), switching brands and replicating my kit would be a very expensive proposition. Even with less kit, UI is important.
> 
> I can also see brand inertia due to familiarity. I hope that’s mostly what people mean by brand loyalty.
> 
> I have had multifunction printers from Epson, Xerox and HP. I have Nikon and Canon binoculars, and I bought Panasonic P&S cameras for my younger kids (my older one uses my old M2).


From a practical and economic standpoint, sticking with a brand you know makes good sense. Muscle memory in terms of the button layout, knowing the menus, makes it easier take photos when you stick with the same brand and similar style camera, and of course, not having to replace lenses.

But, alas, as we see all so often, brand loyalty does exist for a lot of folks, who root for a brand as if it was a local sports team. "Fans" worried about Canon and their sales numbers, fretting over loses to Sony. Canon has to be number 1 in their eyes. Sony fans who inundate forums and Youtube - feeling the need to bash Canon products for years. It's so silly and ridiculous, but oh so much a part of human nature. If my brand is better than your brand then I am better than you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> If my brand is better than your brand then I am better than you.


Good thing we’re on a forum dedicated to the _best_ brand.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get the brand loyalty thing.


Apart from game theory based interpretations, I don't really get the fashion thing. Nor the religion thing. It doesn't mean that these phenomena don't exist or cannot be exploited commercially.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Apart from game theory based interpretations, I don't really get the fashion thing. Nor the religion thing. It doesn't mean that these phenomena don't exist or cannot be exploited commercially.


What's that Fugazi line?

"You are not what you own"


----------



## Deleted (Dec 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get the brand loyalty thing.


Neither do I. I stick with Canon cameras as after many years my muscle memory is fixed in stone. That and I just see no need to switch out a whole setup just for minor features. At home I have Epson and Canon printers and lots of Sony AV stuff as it has always been available and reliable. I change if I am forced to, but not out of any loyalty.


----------



## MythPlayer (Dec 7, 2021)

Canon japan offical website marked EOS M6 mkII as [Few stock left]，Which mean discontinued


----------



## Deleted (Dec 7, 2021)

MythPlayer said:


> Canon japan offical website marked EOS M6 mkII as [Few stock left]，Which mean discontinued


Or just the worldwide chip shortages. That could be drastically affecting them too. I can see a lot of delayed product launches from all brands in the coming years


----------



## unfocused (Dec 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t really get the brand loyalty thing.


With a good marketing program like Canon has, just because you think you are immune to brand loyalty doesn’t mean you are. Marketing experts are well aware of certain psychological types who see themselves as independent decision makers uninfluenced by marketing and know how to manipulate them. We are all being played but if people feel better thinking they aren’t go ahead.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> True, by volume Canon is content to continue to churn out low cost Rebels and M bodies, but I was responding to the claim that the high end market is primarily a marketing showcase, if you look at where the innovation and emphasis is these days, it’s clear that all the companies are focused on the enthusiast market.
> If you want to know what a company’s priorities are look at where the investment is and clearly Canon’s investment is in the lucrative enthusiast market.
> But it’s not just Canon. Across almost all of the retail sector it’s the higher end products that are booming. Those products are less sensitive to economic downturns and have higher margins. You can’t just look at sales volume you have to consider margins as well.


I am not sure we can draw that conclusion.
With the supply shortage companies are not able to make as many lower-priced items.
They can still produce the same number of low-volume items.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 7, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Everthing Canon has done in the past several years indicates they see the enthusiast market as the future (At least until that market ages out in five to 10 years)


Like coming out with low-cost lenses?


----------



## Kit. (Dec 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Like coming out with low-cost lenses?


Those are for the significant others.


----------



## MythPlayer (Dec 7, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Or just the worldwide chip shortages. That could be drastically affecting them too. I can see a lot of delayed product launches from all brands in the coming years


If affecting by semiconductor shortage，canon well mark availability on offical STORE page. 
By now, EOS M6 mkII is unavailable in canon store japan


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2021)

Canon EOS M6 Mark II (Black)







www.cpricewatch.com


----------



## unfocused (Dec 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Like coming out with low-cost lenses?


Yes. Not everyone wants or can afford L lenses. And not everyone buys the most expensive lens in every configuration.


----------



## wyotex43n (Dec 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I just ordered a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary from Adorama since the sale price is not much more than the RF 600 f/11.
> I still plan to get an RF 800 f/11 with a 2x teleconverter.
> Sigma makes a 500 f/4 for less than the price of the Canon 400 f/4 DO but it weighs as much as the Canon 600 f/4.


Is the Sigma an RF mount?


----------



## slclick (Dec 8, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> Is the Sigma an RF mount?


No Sigma lenses as of yet use the RF mount.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.
> 
> I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.



Why say it then? Surely it was implying that they don't sell here.

As for not developing it, that's a common complaint but I think it misses the point. The M series is as developed as it needs to be for the target market. I take Canon's strategy to be, you want more specialised/esoteric glass, you go with EF or RF.


----------



## slclick (Dec 8, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.
> 
> I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.


"I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin? 

Maybe start with inserting a quote about Jon Snow here?


----------



## Deleted (Dec 8, 2021)

slclick said:


> "I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin?
> 
> Maybe start with inserting a quote about Jon Snow here?


Depends how you interpret it. Many here in my area are loyal to their local camera shop and love to go in, handle the kit and get advice. There is also a big group that go to their local camera store to see the kit, then buy from one of the grey import companies. I would put money on the majority of Amazon camera buyers not visiting camera shops and instead doing their research online. I am not suggesting any of these groups are wrong, just different. A lot of older togs I know visit camera stores to do trade ins on their outgoing kit, something you cannot do on Amazon. 

I am only talking bug purchases here, I am sure many of us buy the small stuff next day on prime etc. I do know many wildlife togs of the older generation that still fear buying online, particularly for larger purchases even when at times it can be the safer route. A friend found that out after he bought a new camera. It went wrong two weeks in but by then the local shop had gone out of business.


----------



## Deleted (Dec 8, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Why say it then? Surely it was implying that they don't sell here.


No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.


scyrene said:


> As for not developing it, that's a common complaint but I think it misses the point. The M series is as developed as it needs to be for the target market. I take Canon's strategy to be, you want more specialised/esoteric glass, you go with EF or RF.


Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.
> 
> Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.


Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.


----------



## bf (Dec 13, 2021)

APS RF makes sense for birding or sport when the glass is way heavier than the body but would not fit the gap for what the Ef-m cameras or Fuji-X are offering. I hope Canon is smarter than that! If I go to RF mount, I'd go for a full-frame camera like R5, not an APSC body.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 13, 2021)

wyotex43n said:


> Is the Sigma an RF mount?


EF.
Sigma has no RF lenses at the moment


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 13, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.


RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.


Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 14, 2021)

scyrene said:


> Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.


R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of money


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of money


R5 + 1.4x Extender is equivalent to 35 Mpx APS-C in terms of resolution and field of view, but with the diffraction limits of 45 Mpx FF or 17 Mpx APS-C.
R6 + 1.4x Extender is equivalent to 15 Mpx APS-C = much less money.


scyrene said:


> Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.


You are right in that an f/11 lens matches up better with a low density sensor like that on the R6 because of diffraction limits. I find that it's not worth putting the RF 1.4x on the RF 100-400mm f/8 when it's on the R5, but it is on the R6 for additional reach. With a true 35 MPx APS-C, you would need an f/4 lens or wider to start taking full advantage of its resolution (as is noticeable on the 90D or M6 II).


----------



## researcher (Dec 18, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?
> A full frame that can crop in the view finder would be more flexible. An R7 would have to be quite robust (to match a 7D ruggedness).
> I wonder would they make it more computational like an Olympus. It could I suppose have a good frame rate.
> I hope the sensor is better than the 7DII (a sensor I was never happy with).


I was wondering the same thing. If the current FF R-series can auto-crop to an EF-S lens, then I'm not sure how significant the production savings are in making a new APSC sensor - unless they just cripple the existing sensor to be full-time APSC.

That said, I'm a casual Rebel shooter and I have a few EF-S lenses I've spent money on so I don't shoot enough to warrant the expense of FF. If they come out with a decent R-series APSC that meets the Rebel-series price point, and it retains the core R-series features (IBIS, wifi/bt, screen & EVF, eye-AF etc.) then I'm interested. If Canon wants to hit it out of the park, they should maybe see if a smaller R7 sensor can do global shutter - that would make it a must-have.

The Rebel APSC series is still Canon's biggest seller. I think the casual wannabe market still has good revenue potential if you bring out a decent product that lets people use their existing gear. Smart phones are great but I think enough people want something with more potential, but not too costly, to make it worth a go. My 2 cents...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 29, 2021)

I use an R6 quite heavily for my professional work and now have 5 RF lenses. The only DSLR I've retained is my trusty Rebel-class 77D that I use as a travel camera. I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 2, 2022)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.


Have you tried the M system ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2022)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.


I’d second Sporgon’s comment on the M system. For short trips where I’m packing light (carryon luggage only), I bring the M6, M11-22, M18-150 and a little Gorillapod. It’s a really small and light kit that delivers very good images.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
> 
> I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.



Some of us are also skeptical of folks without access to that data who assume there was no 7D Mark III due to poor sales of the 7D Mark II, to the exclusion of any other possibility.

It might have been because the data revealed that high sales of the 7D Mark II didn't produce as much in profits as the lost sales of the 1D X (prior to 2016) and the 1D X Mark II (2016 and after) would have produced had the 7D Mark II not existed. 

There's also a third possibility: That Canon was planning on releasing a 7D Mark III in 2018-19 but due to market conditions by 2016 or so (e.g. Sony's FF MILCs accelerating sales affecting Canon's FF DSLR sales) they decided instead to devote more resources to getting the EOS R system rolling and the 7D Mark III was one of the projects that fell by the wayside to free up those resources.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I believe the 7D Mk III wasn't made because there was a lack of customers and interested people waiting for it. imho the end of the 7D II life-cycle just coincided with the release of the RF mount. The 7D II came out in 2014 and considering a normal 4-year cycle it should've ended in 2018 with a new 7d III. The release of the RF mount, as we now know, was actually the death of of EF mount and their cameras.
> 
> So, my point is: just because the 7D III was never released, it doesn't necessarily state that there wasn't a market for it or that there isn't a market for an R7.
> 
> In retrospective: imho Canon should have released a 7d III in 2017 or early 2018. It would have had enough time to sell and given Canon the appropriate time to develop a scheme for R-ASPC strategy while having satisfied customers.



In my opinion it was more the case of Canon deciding to devote more resources to getting the EOS R system launched and the 7D mark III was one of the projects that fell by the wayside in order to accelerate the EOS R system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?



That argument sounds a lot like many I heard back around 2012 about why Canon shouldn't worry about competing with Sony's FF MILCs when DSLRs were so much better. We all knew EVFs weren't near as good as OVFs. MILC battery life was a joke. PDAF speed was so superior to CDAF speed. Etc.

The incentive for Canon is that market demand is shifting to mirrorless with or without Canon having products in that segment. They're not going to be caught near as flat-footed this time as they were a half decade ago when the shift to FF MILCs accelerated far beyond their own predictions and expectations.

Canon also seems to astutely recognize that, unlike circa 2003-2015, dominating the lower end digital ILC market (e.g. sub $500 kits) in the years to come will no longer produce the lion's share of profits for anyone. That part of the total ILC market continues to shrink as many folks no longer feel the need for an ILC at all, especially if they can't instantly apply a filter to the photo they just took and post it to social media when using a cheap ILC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The incentive for Canon is that market demand is shifting to mirrorless with or without Canon having products in that segment. They're not going to be caught near as flat-footed this time as they were a half decade ago when the shift to FF MILCs accelerated far beyond their own predictions and expectations.


Except that isn't true. Here are the production figures for DSLRs and MILCs for the past decade. The shift to MILCs is not 'accelerating'. MILC shipments have been flat basically since CIPA started tracking the segment. DSLRs are definitely in decline, but MILCs are not gaining as a result (thanks to Kayaker72 on TDP for the plot).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.



On the other hand, for the same angle of view as an uncropped FF camera that a 400mm f/4 gives you, you can get away with 250mm f/4, which isn't that far away from a lighter, more flexible, and much more affordable 70-200mm f/2.8 compared to a 400/4. 

Now, put a 1.4X on the 200/2.8 and you have a 280/4, which is slightly more reach on an APS-C sensor than a 400/4 on an uncropped FF if both sensors have the same MP count. In my experience, you don't give away much in terms of IQ that would show up in the typical use cases (sports, birding) using one of Canon's latest EF 70-200/2.8 lenses with their latest EF 1.4X extenders. In fact, the extender tends to counteract the geometric distortion of the 70-200mm zooms when used at the longer focal length end, which is where one would typically use a zoom lens with an extender.

At 280mm and f/4, you're still below the DLA for a 32MP APS-C sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except that isn't true. Here are the production figures for DSLRs and MILCs for the past decade. The shift to MILCs is not 'accelerating'. MILC shipments have been flat basically since CIPA started tracking the segment. DSLRs are definitely in decline, but MILCs are not gaining as a result (thanks to Kayaker72 on TDP for the plot).
> 
> View attachment 201924



When MILC numbers remain flat and DSLR numbers continue to crash, MILCs are certainly accelerating in terms of market share.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> One could potentially argue that what Canon really leads is the market segment looking for cameras in that price range. Here in the US, you walk in to Costco and see pallets of the rebel kits. Canon has the name recognition and the price point, and therefore gets the sales. Whether a DLSR is in that box or an RF mirrorless, I think, matters much less to the consumer. They may not even know the difference. They just want a 'real' camera. Not a point and shoot and not a phone. And they want it at that price point.
> 
> So if that is really what is happening, then Canon would be incentivized to consolidate production and engineering to one mount system.
> 
> ...



Yep. And as soon as Canon can make more profit selling a $400 APS-C MILC than a more or less equivalent $400 APS-C DSLR they'll stop making $400 APS-C DSLRs.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

crashpc said:


> Diffraction limiting is not a hard stop, and there are other aspects which will not be limited. As long as you see aliasing/moire, the lens outresolves the sensor. Also, sensor resolution itself is cheap. If there was no other issue, you want all the pixels there is, and then you pay for your lens class to take care about resolution limits.
> 
> Anyways, Canon cripple hammer will hit, and it will hit hard.
> 
> I'm before camera purchase right now. Need at least 240FPS at 720p or better. I guess no Canon camera can do that.



Doesn't Canon have video cameras that can do that? They just don't have stills/hybrid cameras that can do that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> An APS-C R has been rumored since 2018. Still waiting.
> ​


 But CR-3 rumors?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> When MILC numbers remain flat and DSLR numbers continue to crash, MILCs are certainly accelerating in terms of market share.


Obviously. But not in absolute terms. The MILC market is stagnant. That can't be a good thing for its future.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF 24-105/4L, and the EF 24-105/4L (I and II) before it, are kits lenses for FF bodies so of course they're popular. That actually supports my point – when you buy your first FF body, you need a FF kit lens to go with it. I suspect Canon's data show that the people who are 'upgraders' and buy >1-2 lenses also upgrade their body (likely more than once). That's actually an argument for having separate, incompatible mounts that 'force' those wanting to upgrade to buy new lenses to go with their new body and vice-versa.



That might be true if Canon is the sole seller in a closed system. But if other makers (e.g. Nikon and Sony) both offer APS-C and FF systems that use the same mount, that might be the determining factor for a lot of discriminating shoppers who aren't already committed to a particular system.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously. But not in absolute terms. The MILC market is stagnant. That can't be a good thing for its future.


But it's even worse for the DSLR, which is not even up to stagnant if the premise is true. (You were responding to Michael Clark saying "When MILC numbers remain flat and DSLR numbers continue to crash, MILCs are certainly accelerating in terms of market share")


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, just like Toyota is dropping the Corolla.



You can still buy a Corolla in the U.S? Seriously, I haven't seen one driving around in ages. I see Camrys at practically every intersection with a stoplight. How do the sales numbers compare?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

wyotex43n said:


> So Canon makes more money if you buy the 400 f4 or even better the 400 2.8 . My point is I think a lot of people who want this for birding just want the reach/megapixels on the bird or fur. Canon will use this to make the most money.
> If Canon could make an 80 Mpixel 20 fps ff camera that would work for them also but it would probably cost more. There are other tradeoff like you mention but I think this is what drives the" WE Want A R7 "comments. Its been my experience that logic and facts do not drive buying decisions as much as we think.
> FYi I shoot with my R5 and the EF 100-400 and sometimes with the 1.4 adapter. Even with the 1.4 on I think the results are better than I got with my 7dmk2 with the same lens. The keeper rate is way higher.



Without seeing your comparative work using each, I'd guess that the biggest difference is in better AF performance and to a lesser degree better image stabilization with the combined IBIS + IS.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My point was that the statements you made about Canon’s entry into the FF MILC market are near-perfect echoes of common forum posts during the Canon’s entry into the APS-C MILC market. With no judgement on the validity of those statements at the time, the fact is that 5-6 years later Canon was leading that market segment.
> 
> They’ve only been in the FF MILC game for 3.5 years.
> 
> ...



Not at all. Canon's share of the FF MILC market has grown mostly from the Canon FF DSLR user base. That should be blindingly obvious to anyone looking at the numbers you cite who doesn't have an alternate agenda to push.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

slclick said:


> I agree with this purchasing viewpoint and in actual use something I noticed while in Disney and CA adventure for three days last week....
> 
> Packed to the gills, both parks, in 3 days I saw ONE dslr and ONE milc camera. I surmised a thing or two as you could imagine.



Doesn't Disney limit the size of cameras that guests can take inside the parks? I know they have policies against a pro photographer buying a ticket to accompany a "customer's" family around and take photos of them enjoying the attractions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Not at all. Canon's share of the FF MILC market has grown mostly from the Canon FF DSLR user base. That should be blindingly obvious to anyone looking at the numbers you cite who doesn't have an alternate agenda to push.


When Sony was the only FF MILC game in town, most of their sales came from Canon and Nikon FF DSLR shooters. Now, those folks are staying in brand. In 2020, Canon gained 6% of the mirrorless market share and Sony lost 7% of it. If that trend continues even at half strength, by now Canon is the mirrorless market leader just as they have been the ILC market leader for two decades.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> You can still buy a Corolla in the U.S? Seriously, I haven't seen one driving around in ages. I see Camrys at practically every intersection with a stoplight. How do the sales numbers compare?


Knock yourself out.








The 2023 Toyota Corolla | Toyota.com


Discover the new 2023 Toyota Corolla. Explore the Corolla's available trim levels, exciting powerful performance, interior, and safety features




www.toyota.com





I’ve seen a few today, including one that just drove past me (I’m parked).

There were 250K sold in the US last year, the Camry sold about 315K units (according to Car & Driver).

The fact that you haven’t seen any Corollas nicely illustrates what I keep saying about the worthlessness of anecdotal observations. Anecdotes ≠ data.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

SteveC said:


> But it's even worse for the DSLR, which is not even up to stagnant if the premise is true. (You were responding to Michael Clark saying "When MILC numbers remain flat and DSLR numbers continue to crash, MILCs are certainly accelerating in terms of market share")


It is certainly worse for DSLRs. Basically, the ILC market picture is far from rosy.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It is certainly worse for DSLRs. Basically, the ILC market picture is far from rosy.


Basically, there's only one camera market that is growing: the smartphone market. 

And smartphone continues to an increasingly wrong naming. The Chinese word cover s it so much better: 手机 (shouji = hand-machine).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

kaihp said:


> And smartphone continues to an increasingly wrong naming. The Chinese word cover s it so much better: 手机 (shouji = hand-machine).


A phone by any other name.

My oldest child is a teenager now, but in kindergarten (almost a decade ago, yikes!) she brought home a ‘label this object’ worksheet and was confused by one of the icons.




We explained that it was a telephone, and she adamantly told us we were wrong.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sad for you. There’s a Best Buy (nationwide big box electronics retailer, computers, dishwashers, etc.) 3 km from my house that has the R, R5, R6, 5DIV, M-series and Rebel/xxxD, and many Canon lenses including L-series in stock. They have display counters a few meters long for each of Csnon, Nikon and Sony (with a small area of Panasonic and Fuji).
> 
> There are >20 Best Buy stores in my state, I’ve been in 3-4 of them and all have a dedicated camera section. There is also a camera store chain around here (Hunts Photo), and a few independent camera shops as well (there were more of those a few years ago).



The only Canon body or kits that sell for more than $999 at the nearest Best Buy to me in stock is the EOS R + RF 24-105 non-L kit ("only 1 in stock"). The only lens for $999+ in stock is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III ("only 2 in stock").

Today is Wednesday. If ordered today:

Earliest local pickup for an R body only, RP + 24-105/4-7.1 kit , R6 + 24-105/4-7.1 kit, EF 24-70/2.8L II, RF 24-70/2.8L, or M6 Mark II (black) + 15-45mm + EVF-DC2 is in three days on Saturday.

Earliest local pickup for R6 (BO), R (BO), EF 100-400L II, EF 16-35/2.8L III, EF 100/2.8L Macro, M6 II (silver) + 15-45mm + EVF-DC2, or RF 50/1.2L is in four days on Sunday.

Earliest local pickup for EF 70-200/4L II, EF 11-24/4L, RP (BO), RF 100-500/4.5-7.1L, RF 70-200/4L, R6 + RF 24-105/4L, RF 15-35/2.8L, EF 400/4 DO, EF 200-400/4(1.4X)L, or RF 85/1.2L is in six days on Tuesday.

Earliest local pickup for RF 70-200/2.8L is in nine days on Friday week.

Listed as unavailable for pickup (within anywhere from 50 to 250 miles, depending on the item) but available for direct shipping are:

EF 16-35/4L, EOS R + 24-105/4L, and EF 50/1.2L.

Listed as "unavailable nearby" or "sold out" with no option to order either in-store or via direct shipping:

EOS R5 (BO), RF 24-105/4L, RF 28-70/2L, EF 85/1.4L, EF 24-105/4L II, EF 24/1.4L II, TS-E 17/4, EF 500/4L II, EF 800/5.6L, EF 300/2.8L II, EF 600/4, EOS R3, and EF 400/2.8L III. 


Two of the dozens of Nashville area stores 120 miles away have R6 bodies available for pickup today (one of those says "only 1 left"). Most of the other Nashville locations have earliest local pickup either in four days (Sunday) or in one week (next Wednesday). All of the other stuff is similar.

At or below $999, the following Canon cameras and lenses are in stock at the nearest Best Buy:

RF 50/1.8, EF-S 24/2.8 STM, EF 85/1.8 ('only 1 left'), RP (BO), EF-M 22/2, 

Order for pickup later:

EF 50/1.8 STM, RF 35/1.8 Macro, M50 II + 15-45mm 'Content Creator Kit', RF 16/2.8 STM, EF 50/1.4, RF 24-105/4-7.1, EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF-S 10-18 STM, RF 24-240, EF-M 32/1.4, M200 + 15-45mm + 'CCK', EF 35/2, EF-S 10-22mm, M6 II (silver)(BO), RF 800/11, RF 85/2 Macro, M5 + 15-45mm, EF-M 15-45mm (silver), 
RF 100-400/5.6-8, EF-M 28/3.5 Macro, RF 600/11, EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6, 

Direct Shipping only: nothing

Unavailable/Sold Out:

EF 40/2.8 STM, EF-M 18-150 (silver), EF 17-40/4 + 50/1.4 two lens kit, EF-M 55-200mm (silver), EF 50/1.8 STM + Speedlite EL-100 kit, EF-S35/2.8 Macro, 
EF-S 18-135mm, M50 + 15-45mm + Røde Mic 'Video Creator' kit, M50 II (BO), M50 II + 15-45mm, M50 II + 15-45mm + 55-200mm, EF 70-300mm IS II, EF-M 18-150mm, M50 + 15-45mm (white), EF 17-40/4L, EF-S 55-250mm STM.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> A phone by any other name.
> 
> My oldest child is a teenager now, but in kindergarten (almost a decade ago, yikes!) she brought home a ‘label this object’ worksheet and was confused by one of the icons.
> 
> ...


They were already in antiques shops a decade ago.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> >40% of the world is still DSLRs. Actually, it's more than that since 40% is the fraction of ILCs produced this year that were DSLRs. The installed base of DSLRs is still much higher, because it was only 2 years ago that MILCs overtook DSLRs in camera production.
> 
> 
> Ahhh yes, "loads of nature photographers". How many is 'loads'? Do you know? I don't. But I can guarantee you that Canon has a much better sense of that than either of us. The 7-series was on a 5-year cycle anyway, the longest of any Canon series (even the 1-series are on a 4-year cycle, and the xxD and xxxD models were much shorter). If there were "loads of nature photographers" buying high-end APS-C cameras, why did the 7-series languish?


Not exactly. 40% of the ILCs _shipped_ this year were DSLRs. It's well known that Canon stockpiles batches of product so that not many are in continuous production. I'd wager that a good portion of those were actually manufactured prior to the most recent statistical year, because the vast majority of them are models that have been around for more than a year or two. 

Next, what does the "installed base" of DSLRs have to do with products Canon currently has in development or that have been recently introduced? We're talking about current and future sales units here, not how many been sold in past years. You're really reaching on this one. 

What percentage of camera bodies introduced in 2020 or 2021 were DSLRs? Other than the 1D X Mark III, which is a low volume body, the only other is the 850D/Rebel T8i in early 2020. Since those two DSLRs came out, they've introduced the R3, R5, R6, and M50 Mark II. I highly doubt the 850D is selling as well as the M50 II, as most of Canon's DSLR sales are in even lower tier bodies: the older 200D/250D/Rebel SL 3, 2000D/Rebel T7, and 4000D/3000D/Rebel T100. The latter two have been on the market since early 2018. 

The decisions about what products would be introduced in the 2020-21time frame were likely made by the end of 2018.

As for the 7-series five year cycle, it's fairly well accepted that the 7D Mark II was probably originally scheduled for a late 2012 or early 2013 release, three and one-half years after the 7D in late 2009, but development problems with the sensor delayed that until late 2014. When else has Canon released new firmware that increases the capability of a three year old body as significantly as they did with the 7D in 2012? That was a stop-gap measure meant to keep antsy 7D users happy during the delay.

It's also a distinct possibility that we'd have seen a 7D Mark III by late 2018 if Canon had not decided to throw more resources at bringing out the EOS R system in mid-2018. Perhaps the teams already working on the EOS R system were behind projected expectations and Canon reasoned they had more to lose by letting the introduction of the EOS R system be delayed than they had to lose by dropping plans for a 7D Mark III?

You love to chide others for "assuming" things without having access to Canon's mountains of sales and marketing data, yet you continue to insist that low sales numbers are the only possible explanation for the demise of the 7-series line when there are other equally plausible ones.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> When Sony was the only FF MILC game in town, most of their sales came from Canon and Nikon FF DSLR shooters. Now, those folks are staying in brand. In 2020, Canon gained 6% of the mirrorless market share and Sony lost 7% of it. If that trend continues even at half strength, by now Canon is the mirrorless market leader just as they have been the ILC market leader for two decades.



Yeah, but most of the buyers of Canon's FF MILCs are not coming back from Sony FF MILCs, they're coming from Canon FF DSLRs. 

It's not that hard. It really isn't. 

Sony's FF MILC numbers are falling because their α7 line has matured to the point that not all of the Sony faithful are updating every model release like they were a decade ago when each release was a more significant jump from the previous model. That and the Sony customer base tends, on average, to be younger than the customer bases for Canon's & Nikon's higher end cameras like the 5D series, R5, and R6. The pandemic has affected younger people's buying power more than it has affected those in the age 50+ crowd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> I highly doubt the 850D is selling as well as the M50 II, as most of Canon's DSLR sales are in even lower tier bodies: the older 200D/250D/Rebel SL 3, 2000D/Rebel T7, and 4000D/3000D/Rebel T100. The latter two have been on the market since early 2018.


In Japan, the two best-selling ILCs for December were the M50 II (white and black versions). The 250D/SL3 was #3, and the 850D was #6. 



Michael Clark said:


> As for the 7-series five year cycle, it's fairly well accepted that the 7D Mark II was probably originally scheduled for a late 2012 or early 2013 release, three and one-half years after the 7D in late 2009, but development problems with the sensor delayed that until late 2014.


That sounds like 'academic publication code'. As in 'It is known that...' means 'I think' and 'It is well known that...' means me and a few of my colleagues think.



Michael Clark said:


> When else has Canon released new firmware that increases the capability of a three year old body as significantly as they did with the 7D in 2012? That was a stop-gap measure meant to keep antsy 7D users happy during the delay.


The 5DII came out in 2008 and in 2010 came the v2 firmware that significantly enhanced video features.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Knock yourself out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd be interested to see those sales number broken down by region. It might be eye opening. Until the chip shortage, most folks in the south looking for a cheap new vehicle bought a pickup truck. Not only were the base model trucks cheaper, but so are the insurance rates compared to passenger cars. Hyundai Accents are also very popular here. I see them everywhere. Maybe I see Corollas and just don't realize they are Corollas?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The only Canon body or kits that sell for more than $999 at the nearest Best Buy to me in stock is the EOS R + RF 24-105 non-L kit ("only 1 in stock"). The only lens for $999+ in stock is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III ("only 2 in stock").


As I said, sad for you. At the location 2 miles from my house, *today* (in one hour from placing an online order) I could pick up an EOS R with or without 24-105 non-L or an R6. No L-series RF lenses (they do have the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8). For EF lenses they have the 16-35/2.8L III, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L III, 100-400/4.5-5.6L II, and 100/2.8L Macro – 5 lenses over $1K in stock (plus several non-L EF and EF-S lenses). I'm sure Best Buy knows what items sell best in which regions. I suppose I'm fortunate to live in a fairly affluent region.

There are 3 Hunts Photo locations within a 30 minute drive from my house, and they have several RF L-series lenses in stock (14-35, 70-200/4, 100 macro, and 50/1.2). I picked up an RF 1.4x extender there a couple of weeks ago. They have the R, RP, R5 and R6 in stock. Many places in the country don't even have dedicated photo stores any more. As I said, fortunate to be in an affluent area.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> The only Canon body or kits that sell for more than $999 at the nearest Best Buy to me in stock is the EOS R + RF 24-105 non-L kit ("only 1 in stock"). The only lens for $999+ in stock is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III ("only 2 in stock").
> 
> Today is Wednesday. If ordered today:
> 
> ...



I went back and checked and Best Buy had added some weird filters to my search. The also have the T7 two lens kit + bag, Rebel T7 + 18-55 STM kit, Rebel T8i + 18-55mm STM kit, EF → RF basic adapter, 5D Mark IV (BO), and BG-E21 in stock, along with a bunch of various ink and toner cartridges. Apparently I only get the 81 most popular products for each search, because none of the higher end stuff is showing up when I tell it all Canon products and the ink cartridges fill up the list.

The 1D X Mark III, R5 + RF 24-105/4L, EF 8-15/4L, 90D, EL-1, EOS RP (BO), WFT-R10A, EF-S 15-85mm, Rebel SL3 + 15-85mm STM kit, 600EX II-RT, EF-M 32/1.4, RF 35/1.8 Macro, RF 24-105/4-7.1, EF → RF Control Ring Adapter, EF → RF Drop-In Filter Adapter, EF→EOS-M Adapter, BG-E20, EVF-DC1, EVF-DC2, BG-E22, are available for later pickup or direct shipping.

The 6D Mark II (BO) is available only with direct shipping.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I said, sad for you. At the location 2 miles from my house, *today* (in one hour from placing an online order) I could pick up an EOS R with or without 24-105 non-L or an R6. No L-series RF lenses (they do have the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8). For EF lenses they have the 16-35/2.8L III, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L III, 100-400/4.5-5.6L II, and 100/2.8L Macro – 5 lenses over $1K in stock (plus several non-L EF and EF-S lenses). I'm sure Best Buy knows what items sell best in which regions. I suppose I'm fortunate to live in a fairly affluent region.
> 
> There are 3 Hunts Photo locations within a 30 minute drive from my house, and they have several RF L-series lenses in stock (14-35, 70-200/4, 100 macro, and 50/1.2). I picked up an RF 1.4x extender there a couple of weeks ago. They have the R, RP, R5 and R6 in stock. Many places in the country don't even have dedicated photo stores any more. As I said, fortunate to be in an affluent area.



Probably both affluent as well as very densely populated. None of the Nashville Best Buy stores have that much stock and they have some fairly affluent areas where all the music publishing magnates, insurance magnates (insurance makes more money in Nashville than music does), state political lobbyists, doctors from Vanderbilt Medical Center, old money, etc. live. But there are less than 2M people in all of the Nashville MSA.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> In Japan, the two best-selling ILCs for December were the M50 II (white and black versions). The 250D/SL3 was #3, and the 850D was #6.
> 
> 
> That sounds like 'academic publication code'. As in 'It is known that...' means 'I think' and 'It is well known that...' means me and a few of my colleagues think.
> ...




1) My point exactly, the much older and cheaper 250D/SL3 is still outselling the 850D.

2) Oh, come on. You know there were all kinds of rumors and discussions here and elsewhere about it, just as there were about problems with the readout speed of the sensor that eventually wound up in the R5 after the EOS R came out in 2018 made with 5D Mark IV parts and then the RP had the 6D II sensor in it.

3) I wasn't aware of that one because I don't do any real video shooting and I didn't buy a 5D II until early 2011, so mine came with that firmware already installed. That's still a pretty short list.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I said, sad for you. At the location 2 miles from my house, *today* (in one hour from placing an online order) I could pick up an EOS R with or without 24-105 non-L or an R6. No L-series RF lenses (they do have the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8). For EF lenses they have the 16-35/2.8L III, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L III, 100-400/4.5-5.6L II, and 100/2.8L Macro – 5 lenses over $1K in stock (plus several non-L EF and EF-S lenses). I'm sure Best Buy knows what items sell best in which regions. I suppose I'm fortunate to live in a fairly affluent region.
> 
> There are 3 Hunts Photo locations within a 30 minute drive from my house, and they have several RF L-series lenses in stock (14-35, 70-200/4, 100 macro, and 50/1.2). I picked up an RF 1.4x extender there a couple of weeks ago. They have the R, RP, R5 and R6 in stock. Many places in the country don't even have dedicated photo stores any more. As I said, fortunate to be in an affluent area.



Not really that sad for me. I can get anything in stock at B&H via FedEx Ground (free shipping) in two business days. Every camera body I've bought from them was shipped FedEx Express Overnight,

The point is Brick & Mortar camera stores or even big box stores with a wide selection of higher end cameras and lenses in most places are a thing of the past.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> 2) Oh, come on. You know there were all kinds of rumors and discussions here and elsewhere about it, just as there were about problems with the readout speed of the sensor that eventually wound up in the R5 after the EOS R came out in 2018 made with 5D Mark IV parts and then the RP had the 6D II sensor in it.


I remember some whining about, "I want a 7DII and Canon hasn't given me one yet so there must be some reason for the delay," followed by various speculative reasons. Certainly nothing was confirmed. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of excuses. The 7DII was supposed to come earlier, but... There was supposed to be a 7DIII, but... Really still boils down to Canon not releasing the 7DII until 5 years after the 7D and never releasing a 7DIII. Canon...the company that has led the ILC market for two decades and knows a lot more about the market than any of us. You can make up whatever reasons you want for the lack of priority given to the 7-series. The bottom line is Canon undoubtedly made informed decisions and the line was not a priority.



Michael Clark said:


> 3) I wasn't aware of that one because I don't do any real video shooting and I didn't buy a 5D II until early 2011, so mine came with that firmware already installed. That's still a pretty short list.


The v2 firmware for the 1D X was two years in, and added EC in M with Auto ISO, constant exposure with lens changes, and substantially enhanced AF customization options. The original EOS M got a v2 firmware update that substantially improved Servo AF speed (I had that camera from around launch time, before the update Servo mode was basically unusable for anything moving except snails, turtles and my kids when told to go brush their teeth).

The point is, the 7D was not unique in getting substantial improvements via firmware update, so using that argument to support the speculative reasons for the 5-year gap before the 7DII is not valid.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I remember some whining about, "I want a 7DII and Canon hasn't given me one yet so there must be some reason for the delay," followed by various speculative reasons. Certainly nothing was confirmed. Frankly, it sounds like a lot of excuses. The 7DII was supposed to come earlier, but... There was supposed to be a 7DIII, but... Really still boils down to Canon not releasing the 7DII until 5 years after the 7D and never releasing a 7DIII. Canon...the company that has led the ILC market for two decades and knows a lot more about the market than any of us. You can make up whatever reasons you want for the lack of priority given to the 7-series. The bottom line is Canon undoubtedly made informed decisions and the line was not a priority.
> 
> 
> The v2 firmware for the 1D X was two years in, and added EC in M with Auto ISO, constant exposure with lens changes, and substantially enhanced AF customization options. The original EOS M got a v2 firmware update that substantially improved Servo AF speed (I had that camera from around launch time, before the update Servo mode was basically unusable for anything moving except snails, turtles and my kids when told to go brush their teeth).
> ...



I'm aware of the 1D X v.2 and EOS M v.2 Updates. We'll have to agree to disagree that they were as significant as the increased (unlocked) buffer capacity in the 7D that almost doubled the number of raw files that could be shot in burst mode before the camera bogged down. It was enough of a difference to make shooting sports practical saving raw files instead of JPEGs, when it had not been practical before.


----------



## Midge (Jan 6, 2022)

So..... back to the original thread. Is Canon, now that it has officially abandoned DSLR users in favour of mirrorless only,actually going to release an equivalent mirrorless camera to the 7D MK2 so that, with the aid of a simple mount converter, we who have over 20 years investment in high end lenses can still make use of them in the same way as we have done all these years. Its a simple request. CANON- are you listening????????
Or as I suspect, are you (Canon) just forcing people down an ever increasing cost pathway in having to replace bodies and eventually lenses with more expensive RF mount equivalents. I suspect this is so.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Knock yourself out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 2022 Corolla is not your grandfather’s Corolla. It is a little shorter than the Camry, but in casual observation could easily be mistaken for one. The biggest difference is in size and power of the engine. There are likely differences in interior trim with fewer options for significant upgrades in the Corolla.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2022)

stevelee said:


> The 2022 Corolla is not your grandfather’s Corolla. It is a little shorter than the Camry, but in casual observation could easily be mistaken for one. The biggest difference is in size and power of the engine. There are likely differences in interior trim with fewer options for significant upgrades in the Corolla.


My grandfather drove a Honda Accord.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 6, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Not really that sad for me. I can get anything in stock at B&H via FedEx Ground (free shipping) in two business days. Every camera body I've bought from them was shipped FedEx Express Overnight,
> 
> The point is Brick & Mortar camera stores or even big box stores with a wide selection of higher end cameras and lenses in most places are a thing of the past.


I had not been to a Best Buy in a long time until last month when I headed down to the one where I used to buy camera equipment. Before the pandemic I was able to stop by and purchase almost anything I wanted off the shelf. There was always at least one knowledgeable staff member who could advise me on Canon gear. For example, driving home from a classmate’s funeral a few years ago, I decided that life was too short and too uncertain to wait for my birthday to buy the EF 16–35mm zoom, so I stopped at that Best Buy and had the lens right then. (I did live, and therefore thought I had to buy myself something else for my birthday. I got an Apple Watch instead of a new car, the two things I thought of.) My last purchase there was the G5X II shortly after it came out, and they had the Sony alternative and the Canon M50 in stock for me to look at as possibilities.

My recent visit found that they still had the Black Friday price on a top-rated 65” OLED TV, so I bought it. If I don’t get a medium format camera and can’t travel much of anywhere, I might as well spend money on something. They were remodeling and rearranging the store. With some effort I found the new photo gear location. They had just one R-series camera (I don’t recall which one), a bunch of EF lenses, and a few Canon DSLRs. (I didn’t pay attention to other brands.) So it appeared that stock had not be refreshed for a long time, or at best they had sold just the recent stuff.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> So..... back to the original thread. Is Canon, now that it has officially abandoned DSLR users in favour of mirrorless only,actually going to release an equivalent mirrorless camera to the 7D MK2 so that, with the aid of a simple mount converter, we who have over 20 years investment in high end lenses can still make use of them in the same way as we have done all these years. Its a simple request. CANON- are you listening????????
> Or as I suspect, are you (Canon) just forcing people down an ever increasing cost pathway in having to replace bodies and eventually lenses with more expensive RF mount equivalents. I suspect this is so.



If Canon does release a "higher end" APS-C camera in the RF mount, it's more likely to be an extension of the x0D line (90D, 80D, 70D, etc.) than the 7D Mark II. 

- Polycarbonate instead of magnesium alloy body.
- Shorter shutter life rating than the R6 or 7D mark II
- Slightly de-rated AF system compared to the R6 and R5
- Slower maximum frame rates than the R6/R5
- Only one memory card slot

When Canon released the 90D and M6 Mark II without releasing an updated 7D Mark II with the same sensor they might have been signaling that they would no longer be making APS-C bodies with the durability, weather resistance, AF system, and dual card slots of the 1-series. The 7D Mark II is the closest Canon has ever came to making a "mini" 1-series digital body with a smaller APS-C sensor and no built-in grip w/large battery.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 7, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I had not been to a Best Buy in a long time until last month when I headed down to the one where I used to buy camera equipment. Before the pandemic I was able to stop by and purchase almost anything I wanted off the shelf. There was always at least one knowledgeable staff member who could advise me on Canon gear. For example, driving home from a classmate’s funeral a few years ago, I decided that life was too short and too uncertain to wait for my birthday to buy the EF 16–35mm zoom, so I stopped at that Best Buy and had the lens right then. (I did live, and therefore thought I had to buy myself something else for my birthday. I got an Apple Watch instead of a new car, the two things I thought of.) My last purchase there was the G5X II shortly after it came out, and they had the Sony alternative and the Canon M50 in stock for me to look at as possibilities.
> 
> My recent visit found that they still had the Black Friday price on a top-rated 65” OLED TV, so I bought it. If I don’t get a medium format camera and can’t travel much of anywhere, I might as well spend money on something. They were remodeling and rearranging the store. With some effort I found the new photo gear location. They had just one R-series camera (I don’t recall which one), a bunch of EF lenses, and a few Canon DSLRs. (I didn’t pay attention to other brands.) So it appeared that stock had not be refreshed for a long time, or at best they had sold just the recent stuff.



The last piece of camera gear I bought from them was a 50D + EF 28-135mm kit back in late 2009. I needed the camera body for a shoot the next day and couldn't find a body only anywhere in the area. I never really used that lens much at all. It's been on permanent loan to a local high school Art/Photography department for several years now, along with my original 7D body.

But I used to always slide through the camera department just to see what they had (and maybe see if any cool accessories were on clearance) when shopping for music CDs and DVD/Blu-Ray videos. The only two that are within reasonable driving distance of me haven't had much of anything above the Rebel lines, a current x0D, and a current 5D and/or 6D body in a long time. The only non-consumer lenses they carried (apart from the 5D kits with 24-105/4, they never had body only in stock) were the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 and/or the 70-200/4. They didn't have many consumer lenses beyond the current version of the "nifty fifty", the EF 75-300 (yuck!) and EF-S 55-250mm, and sometimes maybe an EF 85/1.8. I think they also usually had the EF-S 24mm and EF 40mm STM pancake lenses after they came out.


----------



## Midge (Jan 7, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> If Canon does release a "higher end" APS-C camera in the RF mount, it's more likely to be an extension of the x0D line (90D, 80D, 70D, etc.) than the 7D Mark II.
> 
> - Polycarbonate instead of magnesium alloy body.
> - Shorter shutter life rating than the R6 or 7D mark II
> ...





Michael Clark said:


> The last piece of camera gear I bought from them was a 50D + EF 28-135mm kit back in late 2009. I needed the camera body for a shoot the next day and couldn't find a body only anywhere in the area. I never really used that lens much at all. It's been on permanent loan to a local high school Art/Photography department for several years now, along with my original 7D body.
> 
> But I used to always slide through the camera department just to see what they had (and maybe see if any cool accessories were on clearance) when shopping for music CDs and DVD/Blu-Ray videos. The only two that are within reasonable driving distance of me haven't had much of anything above the Rebel lines, a current x0D, and a current 5D and/or 6D body in a long time. The only non-consumer lenses they carried (apart from the 5D kits with 24-105/4, they never had body only in stock) were the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 and/or the 70-200/4. They didn't have many consumer lenses beyond the current version of the "nifty fifty", the EF 75-300 (yuck!) and EF-S 55-250mm, and sometimes maybe an EF 85/1.8. I think they also usually had the EF-S 24mm and EF 40mm STM pancake lenses after they came out.


----------



## Midge (Jan 7, 2022)

I was not sure there would even be an APS-c mirrorless camera while ever the M series was around. Now we hear of the likely demise of that series it would be nice if Canon did produce a mirrorless equivalent of the 7D mk2. It doesnt necessarily follow that it has to be a lower quality poly-bodied one as the sales over the years of the 7D iterations was good because wildlife enthusiasts recognised the extra reach you could get from the sensor magnification. Add on a X1.4extender and a 100-400mm zoom and you had a great and versatile combination. I believe there are many out there that would like to see this continue in the mirrorless future. A cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> I was not sure there would even be an APS-c mirrorless camera while ever the M series was around. Now we hear of the likely demise of that series it would be nice if Canon did produce a mirrorless equivalent of the 7D mk2. It doesnt necessarily follow that it has to be a lower quality poly-bodied one as the sales over the years of the 7D iterations was good because wildlife enthusiasts recognised the extra reach you could get from the sensor magnification. Add on a X1.4extender and a 100-400mm zoom and you had a great and versatile combination. I believe there are many out there that would like to see this continue in the mirrorless future. A cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use.



I hear you. I too would like an R7. But Canon gave us the 90D and M6 Mark II in mid-2019, and did not give us the 7D Mark III.

As far as the demise of the EOS M system is concerned, I think those reports are greatly exaggerated. Canon seems to be selling an awful lot of EOS M cameras and lenses compared to the numbers for their other products.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> I was not sure there would even be an APS-c mirrorless camera while ever the M series was around. Now we hear of the likely demise of that series…


I hear the earth is flat, too. Probably from sources with similar knowledge and credibility.




Midge said:


> ...it would be nice if Canon did produce a mirrorless equivalent of the 7D mk2. It doesnt necessarily follow that it has to be a lower quality poly-bodied one as the sales over the years of the 7D iterations was good because wildlife enthusiasts recognised the extra reach you could get from the sensor magnification. Add on a X1.4extender and a 100-400mm zoom and you had a great and versatile combination. I believe there are many out there that would like to see this continue in the mirrorless future. A cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use.


You 'believe there would be many out there'. The thing is, Canon has far better knowledge of that than any of us on this forum. Yet they chose to wait 5 years between the 7D and 7DII, and to not make a 7DIII. That certainly suggests they believe there are not really that many.

Also, consider your post in totality – the demise of the M series...a cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use. Are you unaware that the entry level bodies sell very, very well? For the past couple of years the top 10 best-selling camera kits in Japan have included the EOS M50 II, EOS M50, 250D/SL3 and 850D? Because some of those come in different colors and 1- and 2-lens kit flavors, it's not uncommon in a given month to have 6 of the top ten slots taken by those cameras. So we 'hear of the demise of the M line' and 'we hear of the demise of the DSLR' (the latter even more frequently) and then you suggest there is no use for a cheaper body with poor weather sealing. Sorry, that really makes no sense at all.

I understand the desire. Personally, when I shot with a gripped 7D, I really wanted Canon to release a mini-1-series body with an APS-C sensor. Now, having shot with the 1D X for 9 years and not the R3, I would not choose to go back to APS-C for the bulk of my photography, although I do have the M6 and use that occasionally for travel.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> I was not sure there would even be an APS-c mirrorless camera while ever the M series was around. Now we hear of the likely demise of that series it would be nice if Canon did produce a mirrorless equivalent of the 7D mk2. It doesnt necessarily follow that it has to be a lower quality poly-bodied one as the sales over the years of the 7D iterations was good because wildlife enthusiasts recognised the extra reach you could get from the sensor magnification. Add on a X1.4extender and a 100-400mm zoom and you had a great and versatile combination. I believe there are many out there that would like to see this continue in the mirrorless future. A cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use.


I see that you are new hear, so I thought I'd just chime in with a reminder...

This is a rumor site - so it is best to disregard anything you read here until actual Canon announcements are made. This site is NOT run by Canon and has no affiliation with Canon. If you have actual comments or questions that you want Canon to address, contact them.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I see that you are new hear, so I thought I'd just chime in with a reminder...
> 
> This is a rumor site - so it is best to disregard anything you read here until actual Canon announcements are made. This site is NOT run by Canon and has no affiliation with Canon. If you have actual comments or questions that you want Canon to address, contact them.


@Midge is new here and is just starting a discussion to see what others think. There is nothing wrong with that so don't be condescending to new members and tell them to write to Canon. Members here like Neuro and Michael Clark do have good insights into what is going on and they should not be disregarded.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I see that you are new hear, so I thought I'd just chime in with a reminder...
> 
> This is a rumor site - so it is best to disregard anything you read here until actual Canon announcements are made. This site is NOT run by Canon and has no affiliation with Canon. If you have actual comments or questions that you want Canon to address, contact them.


While that is a good reality check, it should also be noted that this particular thread began with a CR3 rating from @Canon Rumors Guy.

CRGuy is pretty conservative in his ratings, so if he gave it a CR3 it's certainly reasonable for people to give the original post (not all the speculation from forum members) some credence. As to what form that APS-C body might take and as to whether or not the 2022 timetable will hold up are certainly topics that can and should be debated, but I have learned from past experience that one discounts Craig's CR3 rumors at their own risk.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> @Midge is new here and is just starting a discussion to see what others think. There is nothing wrong with that so don't be condescending to new members and tell them to write to Canon. Members here like Neuro and Michael Clark do have good insights into what is going on and they should not be disregarded.


I see nothing wrong with letting new members know that these are rumors and that this site is not affiliated with Canon. Far too many members, whether they are new or not, treat rumors as fact and then post that rumored information as fact, either here or other places.

It is very easy for a new member to believe that this is a Canon affiliated site. Just pointing out that it is not.

I am glad that Midge is starting a discussion, but it is important for everyone, in my opinion - not just new members - to discuss the information from the correct starting point. Discussions can easily go astray or lead to misinformation if the starting point is presumed to be fact when it is actually a rumor, or even worse, when the rumor is factually incorrect, such as the current thread regarding the "last DSLR." The constant talk of the M system being discontinued has led at least a few people on this and other forums to sell their M system cameras and lenses. So, I don't think it is a bad idea to remind people when something is a rumor - or in other cases when the information is not even a rumor, just someone's opinion.

I certainly did not mean to single out Midge - and, in fact, have given the advice to many posters to contact Canon directly if they have a specific question or request. Obviously, they won't get any information about upcoming products that have not been announced, but making requests or asking specific questions are more likely (in my opinion) to be seen and registered if Canon is contacted, not an unaffiliated rumor site that is discussing Canon products.

If I seemed condescending to Midge, I am sorry. That was certainly not my intent. Nor is it my intent to disregard the members here who post good, reliable information, of which you are one. My use of the word "disregard" was a bad choice, but quite frankly a new member will have no idea who is a reliable poster and who is just someone trolling their particular agenda.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I see nothing wrong with letting new members know that these are rumors and that this site is not affiliated with Canon. Far too many members, whether they are new or not, treat rumors as fact and then post that rumored information as fact, either here or other places.
> 
> It is very easy for a new member to believe that this is a Canon affiliated site. Just pointing out that it is not.
> 
> ...


OK, I accept that you didn't intend it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The constant talk of the M system being discontinued has led at least a few people on this and other forums to sell their M system cameras and lenses.


I don’t get that attitude. Do people think their camera will stop working if Canon stops selling them?


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t get that attitude. Do people think their camera will stop working if Canon stops selling them?


It's like Adobe PS - stop paying, it stops working.


----------



## Rocky (Jan 7, 2022)

Midge said:


> A cheaper body with poor weather sealing would be no use.


My cheap and poor weather sealing M50 with 15-45mm lense survived 3 days of rain and snow 3 years ago without any problem after that.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> The constant talk of the M system being discontinued has led at least a few people on this and other forums to sell their M system cameras and lenses.


I know this is mean, but if people are that dumb they deserve what they get.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t get that attitude. Do people think their camera will stop working if Canon stops selling them?


Some people are obsessed with retaining the value of their "investment."

That's not my perspective. Once I've bought something, I usually figure that the money is gone and if I get anything back when and if I sell it, that's a bonus. 

Probably why I don't expect to ever be rich.


----------



## Midge (Jan 9, 2022)

Hi this is Midge. I take no offence at the comments. I know its a rumours site. However, behind rumour there is often a truth or two. I was sounding out what others thought and what I hoped might happen in the future, besides expressing my frustration at what I felt was undue treatment by all Canon users regarding the move from DSLR to mirrorless. I personally hope a 7D mk2 replacement at the same build quality in mirrorless format DOES come along as that is my perfect upgrade and with the adaptor I will continue to use my array of EF glass.


----------



## Midge (Jan 9, 2022)

Rocky said:


> My cheap and poor weather sealing M50 with 15-45mm lense survived 3 days of rain and snow 3 years ago without any problem after that.


Thats great. Good to know of positive experience. My comment related to the excellent 7D mk2 weather sealing and build. I use this body in all weathers and its never let me down. My hope is that a mirrorless APS-c camera body will appear with the same build quality


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 24, 2022)

Sporgon said:


> Have you tried the M system ?


 I have not tried the M system, although I gave it some thought. In the past, I figured it didn't provide much additional function over my 77D. Recently I think I heard it was going to be discontinued.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2022)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I have not tried the M system, although I gave it some thought. In the past, I figured it didn't provide much additional function over my 77D. Recently I think I heard it was going to be discontinued.


Recently I heard the earth was flat. 

The EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line in Japan and probably the world. Or course, it's possible that Canon is stupid and has not clue about how to make and sell cameras. It's also possible that what I heard about the world was true. No, no it's not.


----------



## _AmatuerSnaps_ (Jan 24, 2022)

M line is great if it does what you want it to.

The selection of lenses is limited but does include some good quality ones.
The m50 for me was lacking as I found the auto focus too slow and looking at the m6 mkii, well I will never understand why a version with a built-in EVF wasn't brought out. I still occasionally get tempted but prices have gone daft.

Oh and the m50 mk ii was Canon flipping off its customers.

I think the line will come to an end once we see the RF APC replacements come out, but given what is going on in the world that could be a long way off.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Recently I heard the earth was flat.
> 
> The EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line in Japan and probably the world. Or course, it's possible that Canon is stupid and has not clue about how to make and sell cameras. It's also possible that what I heard about the world was true. No, no it's not.


Where I live on the prairies, the earth IS flat. Not sure what that has to do with an R7 though.

Jack


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2022)

Jack Douglas said:


> Where I live on the prairies, the earth IS flat. Not sure what that has to do with an R7 though.
> 
> Jack


Here in the Midwest it's flat too. In fact, it's a proven scientific fact.


----------

