# After the EOS R3, Canon will introduce new “affordable” RF mount cameras [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 11, 2021)

> The Canon EOS R3 is getting all of the talk right now, and for good reason. The new camera will become Canon’s flagship RF mount camera until we see an EOS R1 late next year at the earliest.
> I have been told that after the Canon EOS R3 begins and whenever supply chain issues are corrected, Canon will focus on the lower end of the RF mount lineup.
> A replacement for the Canon EOS RP is coming, this will obviously be the new entry-level camera for the RF lineup. Pricing for this camera will be aggressive.
> The RF mount APS-C sensor equipped unicorn is also “in the pipeline”. It will sit above the EOS RP replacement in price and will be the smallest camera in the RF mount lineup.
> Reading between the lines, it doesn’t appear that an APS-C RF mount camera will be the EOS 7D series replacement a lot...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 11, 2021)

Excited to see what that Aps-C camera is. I just hope it is mirrorless x0D with dual card slots.


----------



## Rocksthaman (Jun 11, 2021)

Lol I read “the R3 will not be affordable”


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 11, 2021)

I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.

They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….

If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 11, 2021)

Sigh...I guess I'll be buying another M6 Mk II as a 'backup'.

I don't understand Canon's thinking here regarding small cameras and small lenses (EF-M ecosystem)--they're ceding that market to others.

I don't understand it at all.

That's OK...there's lots of things I don't understand (ask my wife of 37 years  ).


----------



## amorse (Jun 11, 2021)

And here I was thinking they'd head for the high-resolution body next.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Jun 11, 2021)

More affordable than an R6? Hoping so. I primarily do landscape and see no compelling reason to pay the extra $500 or so that an R6 costs over a Z6II. As great as the the RF lenses are, the fast ones not affordable for me, nor do much good for landscape work. I prefer the Nikkor S 24-70 f4 and their great S50 f1.8 to what I see from Canon. My mind is open, not wishing to buy right now, and anxiously waiting to see what Canon delivers.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but* I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.*
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.



You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.

I think Canon has two other reasons to do that: focusing the resources to ONE mount in the near future for the higher end systems and sell more new RF lenses in an otherwise saturated market (the rare occurence of these simple EF to EOS RF adapters supports this idea IMO).
IMO EF mount will die soon, EF-M has its own niche and will stay longer, maybe much longer. M50 is a great little guy!


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 11, 2021)

I'm not buying a crop R camera, either its an affordable R tupe full frame or forget it.


----------



## Rumourhasit (Jun 11, 2021)

It’s going to be a very interesting few years as Canon Revamp there lineup. Will they truly leave the popular M series behind or morph is into an small bodied APS-C with RF mount. Will they release a successor to the 7D, A crop frame in a reasonably pro body worthy of a single digit. What about the 90D, they are running out of numbers for the two digit line. The RPii as an entry level FF has a place but the eosR was only every a stop gap till the R5 came out so I doubt it will see a replacement


----------



## amorse (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


I don't know, I can see value in having the RF APS-C system as creating a pathway to full frame and keeping people within the ecosystem as they transition. There are a number of lower cost full frame lenses which could realistically be purchased by a cost-conscious RF APS-C camera user who would want to continue use of the lenses on a new full frame camera when they upgrade. As a few examples, I could see an APS-C RF mount buyer also picking up an RF 35mm macro, or the 85mm macro, or even the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1. 

Speaking from my own experience, when I owned a Canon 450D I had only 3 lenses - the kit lens (I think it was an 18-55), a Sigma 10-20, and a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. That Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 was the only lens I owned that would work with a full frame EF camera, but it was enough to tip the scales and get me to invest a 6D, despite the lens being my least-used lens at the time. People can be weird about their perception of sunk investment, so if people do buy any full frame RF lenses for an RF APS-C camera, I think they may become quite a bit more likely to buy a full frame RF body to prevent the perception of lost investment. With that said, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 11, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> Sigh...I guess I'll be buying another M6 Mk II as a 'backup'.
> 
> I don't understand Canon's thinking here regarding small cameras and small lens (EF-M ecosystem)--they're ceding that market to others.
> 
> ...



The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality. 

That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 11, 2021)

In both the USA and Japan the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera, but in their financial documents, they don't even acknowledge its existence. I can't remember that last time Canon mentioned APS-C anything.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 11, 2021)

I love my RP but I want more, looking forward to an RP upgrade!


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 11, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
> If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.
> 
> ...


Another group is macro photographers especially ones who herp, very few move to FF cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

I see M6 Mark II as kind of a 90D in an M body so I can see putting a 90D in an RP body.
I can also see putting a 7D in an R body.
None of these would replace the portability of the M line.
People who keep calling for its death do not seem to get its appeal.


----------



## MartinVLC (Jun 11, 2021)

What I don´t understand is, that Canon leaves the entire segment of enthusiasts and pros on a budget to Sony and Nikon. 

Sony has the A7III for 1800 €/$ and Nikon has the Z5, Z6 and Z6II all of them very capable cameras between 1300-1800 €/$. Canon only has the EOS R (slow, without IBIS, without 2nd cardslot, ...), that in my opinion is clearly overpriced compared to Sony and Nikon and aswell to the EOS RP. 

I have the EOS RP and I´m happy with the performance for the price of around 1000 €/$. But I would like to upgrade soon to a more capable camera. Shooting mainly portrait and architecture, I´m shurely not willing to pay 2600 €/$ for a 20MP EOS R6.

If they just brought the price of the RP back down to 999,- incl. EF-RF-adapter, there would be no need to replace the RP at the moment because it´s a great entry to the mirrorless FF segment.

What is really missing in canons lineup is a capable camera between 1500-2500 €/$ with 30+ MP, IBIS and good DR that is able to beat the A7III/IV, and the Z5/Z6/Z6II.-

Guess I´ll have to wait till 2024+ to replace my RP...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> What I don´t understand is, that Canon leaves the entire segment of enthusiasts and pros on a budget to Sony and Nikon.


It is not that I don't understand it.
I don't believe it.
Canon has never done that.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2021)

Adelino said:


> I love my RP but I want more, looking forward to an RP upgrade!


I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


APS-C RF mount is 100% upsell marketing strategy and makes zero practical sense. It's the hope they they will sell someone a cheap RF mount aps-c and that person will invest in expensive RF lenses - then eventually an expensive full frame RF body. Trying to recreate their EF-S marketing upsell strategy in other words

The main difference and problem is EF-M and options from other brands are a much smarter small sensor choice than RF APS-C if you know what you are doing


----------



## Tremotino (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


That's exactly what happened to me...

After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my *FULLFRAME* lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...

As an apsc shooter my only apsc lense was the 18-55mm kit lense.
And I thought at that time as a teenager I will only buy fullframe lenses because later I want to upgrade. The only problem was, that as a apsc shooter you won't invest good money for extraordinary lenses. You just buy cheap and old stuff for a few hundred bucks which in my opinion is already a lot for an apsc shooter. I think most of them stick with their kit lense. 
So now I have really good lenses because I understood that my cheap old fullframe lenses won't make me happy anymore.
Would I have bought this lenses for my apsc cameras?
No way!

Anyone had a similar experience?


----------



## Stuart (Jun 11, 2021)

Would an Aps-C RF camera not be targeted at vloggers. And useful for birders?


----------



## amfoto1 (Jun 11, 2021)

Why couldn't Canon introduce two R-series APS-C cameras at the same time, with one being an affordable model and the other a higher-end, more "pro" oriented camera?
That's EXACTLY what Canon with the R6 and R5. The RP and R also were introduced less than 6 months apart, so must have been in the development and manufacturing pipeline on similar schedules. In fact, it's possible Canon "held back" the release of the RP in order to maximize R sales. Maybe we'll see an "R7" and an "R10" or "R100" intro'd together or very close to each other (and alongside a couple crop specific RF lenses... a compact "kit" standard zoom and an ultrawide, both of which already appear on the lens roadmap and are slate for this year or early 2022).


----------



## Tremotino (Jun 11, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In both the USA and Japan the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera, but in their financial documents, they don't even acknowledge its existence. I can't remember that last time Canon mentioned APS-C anything.


That's simply marketing for the investors: the board always has to impress the shareholders with the newest, greatest, most advanced product


----------



## Tremotino (Jun 11, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I see M6 Mark II as kind of a 90D in an M body so I can see putting a 90D in an RP body.
> I can also see putting a 7D in an R body.
> None of these would replace the portability of the M line.
> People who keep calling for its death do not seem to get its appeal.


I think the Sigma FP L is quite small for a fullframe mounted camera? 
Same could happen to RF


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 11, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> More affordable than an R6? Hoping so. I primarily do landscape and see no compelling reason to pay the extra $500 or so that an R6 costs over a Z6II. As great as the the RF lenses are, the fast ones not affordable for me, nor do much good for landscape work. I prefer the Nikkor S 24-70 f4 and their great S50 f1.8 to what I see from Canon. My mind is open, not wishing to buy right now, and anxiously waiting to see what Canon delivers.


I strongly suspect the next “wave” of RF glass to include a F4L wide angle, and maybe an F4L 24-70. Those will be cheaper and lighter than the F2.8 versions out now.


----------



## amfoto1 (Jun 11, 2021)

Not everyone wants or needs a full frame camera. Personally I use both full frame and APS-C Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. Different tools for different purposes. Each formats has its strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons.
Someone who is rather specialized in what they shoot may only need one format or the other. But some if us shoot quite different types of subjects and can see benefits in having a choice of formats.
Shooting a lot of sports (commercially) and wildlife (personally), I use crop sensor cameras about 10X more than I do full frame (architecture, landscapes, portraits, etc.) A number of my 24 lenses are L-series, too, and see their most frequent use on crop cameras. I long ago learned that tip quality glass was the most important aspect of photography and never felt any shame hanging a 500mm f/4L, 300mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L off a Canon 10D, 30D, 59D or 7D-series camera.
For some of my shooting, I would find it very useful for an RF 100-500mm lens to "act like" a 160-800mm, simply by using it on an APS-C R-series camera. Yes, I could use a full frame camera and just add a 1.4X teleconverter... But that costs one stop of light and only gets me to 700mm. Also, yes I could just crop a full frame image to the equivalent of APS-C... But that costs resolution. To equal 24MP APS-C, the full frame image would need to be done with a 63MP camera. To equal a 32.5MP APS-C image, the crop would need to be done from an 80+MP camera. Since those don't exist (and will be quite expensive when they do), Canon please give me a good APS-C R-series!
The Canon M-series do not suffice as Canon's APS-C mirrorless contribution. Yes, I have one (M5) and really like it for certain purposes (street photography, casual portraiture, travel). But the M-series... and especially the very limited selection and type of lenses Canon has so grudgingly produced for them... just do not have the performance necessary for some types of photography. 
Canon has sort of treated the M-series as interchangeable lens Powershots on steroids... They've acted as if M-series fall somewhere in between a point n shoot and a "real" camera like a DSLR. It's not that M-series aren't quite capable and didn't have a lot of potential. It's just that Canon appeared to be afraid of eroding their own DSLR sales and chose not to go "too far" with the M-series. And now, because it must be a pain to produce four distinct series of lenses with limited interchangeability, you can bet Canon will eventually sunset the M-series and replace them with APS-C R-series.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 11, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality.
> 
> That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.



My answer for an out-to-300 lens for the M format is an adapted 70-300 IS II--not too large...not too heavy...and (including the EF/EF-M adapter) very well-balanced on both the M6 and M6 Mark II.

Image quality pretty good...and it focuses thisfast!


----------



## jeanluc (Jun 11, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
> I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.


I thought I preferred an OVF until I got an R5. That body will make you forget OVF (and DSLR’s in general) very, very quickly…


----------



## dick ranez (Jun 11, 2021)

I'm not sure what percentage of the volume or the profit that the Rebel line of cameras produce, but I don't see a R based replacement that's obvious. Unless Canon has a secret "arrangement" to leave the APS market to Fuji, there doesn't seem to be a strategy.


----------



## scottw (Jun 11, 2021)

The never ending rumors of APS-C RF, lol.

Canon, if you read this stuff...

EF-M has been a nice system since dual pixel AF sensors were added. I'd actually like to see them take it in a direction more like Sony has with their A7c and ZV-1 by offering compact video focused bodies in addition to their straight consumer focused bodies. Group together the markets that don't need ultra pro long telephoto and specialty lenses.

I personally think they should stick to their sensor mount split by coming up with an ultra high pixel density full-frame RF body that has a super fast crop mode for people that want it.

Has the Nikon Z50 done well? What percentage of those users are experimenting with FF glass and bodies? I've used the camera and generally like it, but right now it's $150 cheaper than the Z5 (new body only), which doesn't feel like enough of a difference for someone with an interest in eventually going full-frame. That said, I think for good or bad it's likely Canon will release APS-C RF due to fear of missing out compared to Nikon, haha.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 11, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> Sigh...I guess I'll be buying another M6 Mk II as a 'backup'.
> 
> I don't understand Canon's thinking here regarding small cameras and small lenses (EF-M ecosystem)--they're ceding that market to others.
> 
> ...


Don't lose hope yet. CR1 means this is Craig's best wild a** guess. The description of the APS-c body better fits the definition of an M5 II than anything that makes sense in the R system. Why would you make an APS-c R body that was more expensive than the entry full frame and not address the 7D market? That makes far less sense than a top-of-the-line M camera.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 11, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
> If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.
> 
> ...


The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that. 

But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.


----------



## jvillain (Jun 11, 2021)

I like being able to take one set of crop lenses to a shoot that I can use for both stills and my video work. Before some clown starts in with the "go full frame, go full frame, my favorite Youtiuber says full frame is best and he's dreamy". The cost of upgrading all my bodies and lenses to FF would be ~$40,000. The benefit to doing so would be 0.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 11, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> That's exactly what happened to me...
> 
> After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my *FULLFRAME* lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...
> 
> ...


You describe my journey almost exactly. I think my only aps-c lens was the 15-85. The only lens I kept was the 70-300 L, all my other EF lenses got sold when I got a FF.


----------



## jvillain (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that.
> 
> But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.



Lenses over 200MM get exponentially more expense quickly not to mention heavy and bulky.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jun 11, 2021)

amorse said:


> I don't know, I can see value in having the RF APS-C system as creating a pathway to full frame and keeping people within the ecosystem as they transition. There are a number of lower cost full frame lenses which could realistically be purchased by a cost-conscious RF APS-C camera user who would want to continue use of the lenses on a new full frame camera when they upgrade. As a few examples, I could see an APS-C RF mount buyer also picking up an RF 35mm macro, or the 85mm macro, or even the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1.
> 
> Speaking from my own experience, when I owned a Canon 450D I had only 3 lenses - the kit lens (I think it was an 18-55), a Sigma 10-20, and a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. That Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 was the only lens I owned that would work with a full frame EF camera, but it was enough to tip the scales and get me to invest a 6D, despite the lens being my least-used lens at the time. People can be weird about their perception of sunk investment, so if people do buy any full frame RF lenses for an RF APS-C camera, I think they may become quite a bit more likely to buy a full frame RF body to prevent the perception of lost investment. With that said, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.


I assume the strategy you describe is what canon is banking on, but I wonder if that’s how it commonly plays out. If I was a GM in canon I would question throwing out the investment made in developing EOS M, in the hope of developing upgraders path. That definitely worked for EF-S to EF but will it still play in today’s market?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 11, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I'm not buying a crop R camera, either its an affordable R tupe full frame or forget it.


Alright, calm down.


----------



## dwilz (Jun 11, 2021)

I see this scenario quite a bit over on the sports photography forum on facebook. Newbie gets a cheap aps-c camera with kit lens to shoot their children's sports. Newbie posts blurry photos of their kid playing the sport and asks why aren't their photos sharp. They get told they need a faster lens so that their shutter speed can be higher. They are told to get a 70-200 f/2.8. So they buy that. A little later in the season it starts getting dark earlier and their children are now playing in low light. They post photos asking why are their photos so grainy/ not sharp. The response is they need to buy a full frame body. And there is your typical upgrade path (for parents shooting sports).


----------



## Adelino (Jun 11, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
> I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.


Improve a little of everything, maybe the R sensor, I'd be happy with that, a little more frame rate not much, better eye focus animal focus that should be easy, I would LOVE IBIS but I know that's expensive. Less blackout and higher rez viewfinder/screen


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 11, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
> I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.


I strongly suspect that better framerates and improved eye-AF come for free with a more modern sensor. Everything seems to point to the slow sensor readout being the bottleneck on the RP.

I sold my RP to get an R5, but I'd love to have something that size next to my R5 again. Just replacing the 6DII sensor with the R6 sensor would improve it a lot. When I compared the dragonfly photos I took with an RP and 1DXIII side by side, the 1DXIII pictures were all more detailed, despite having less megapixels.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2021)

The problem is that a M6 Mark II replacement in RF mount can never be that small as the M6 because of the bigger mount.


----------



## jedy (Jun 11, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
> If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.
> 
> ...


If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 11, 2021)

The absence of the high res camera does make one wonder what the resolution of the R3 is going to be . And, to highlight the "accuracy" of CR1, CR completely missed boat on the R3 until it was announce. Pretty much the same with the R5, as I recall.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 11, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> Sigh...I guess I'll be buying another M6 Mk II as a 'backup'.
> 
> I don't understand Canon's thinking here regarding small cameras and small lenses (EF-M ecosystem)--they're ceding that market to others.
> 
> ...


I don't know what market region you live in, but the M50 and M6mk 2 dominate the small camera markets in most major regions by far. So much so that Canon has expanded its camera market share. Canon remains the big dog on the block. No other manufacturer is even close in camera share.


----------



## samirj (Jun 11, 2021)

they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )


----------



## jam05 (Jun 11, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
> If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.
> 
> ...


Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

Ruined said:


> The main difference and problem is EF-M and options from other brands are a much smarter small sensor choice than RF APS-C if you know what you are doing


Pretty much nothing competes with M200, M50, and M6 Mark II at their price points.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that.
> 
> But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.


In my case it is the 70-200 f/4 I really liked on APS-C (EOS 20D) from the first day because it has a unique combination of features:

great focal length range from 110-320mm equiv
constant f/4
non-extending design (o.k. the RF doesn't have it now 
good close focus
and there is no 100-300 f/4 lens for full frame yet ...
But I know this is a matter of personal choice!


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 11, 2021)

jedy said:


> If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.


It would always be a good idea to put everything into one camera but ... 24 MPix on APS-C is 24 x 1.6² or roughly 75 MPix and this will be expensive! Having two bodies means having a backup system.
But if price doesn't matter (maybe for to high res FF bodies) and tech is available I fully agree!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

amfoto1 said:


> Why couldn't Canon introduce two R-series APS-C cameras at the same time, with one being an affordable model and the other a higher-end, more "pro" oriented camera?


That would depend on what you mean by affordable.
There is not much point in a cheap RF APS-C camera before cheap lenses arrive.
People complained about the RP but owners were able to adapt EF lenses.
Rebel users can already do that to the M line.
M line users can't do that at all.
7D owners often use full-frame lenses so an R7 makes more sense.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 11, 2021)

I would certainly be interested in a crop R series camera. In the past year I've started doing Birds and BIF and tried a number of camera lens combinations. The main locations where I have been able to shoot keep me a fair distance from the birds, so I ultimately chose the Olympus 100-400mm lens to use on my E-m1 II, giving me the equivalent 200-800mm reach. The Canon 100-400 paired with an R6 I was able to use did not give me enough reach. The new RF 100-500 was a very impressive lens but beyond my budget (especially as I would need a new R series camera to go with it.) Tried an M6 II, but way too small for my taste when paired with any non-M lens.

I know lots of folks on forums don't get the appeal of an APS-C R camera. It's about reach. You don't need special "crop R" lenses. It's about reach.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 11, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.


Yes. But there is a way to migrate and I have done it: I use mostly EF(-S) lenses for my two M50s with the adapter because

they fit on the RP
they fit on my 600Ds for timelapse recordings
they have real MF/AF switches
they have a real focus ring with scales on it
the adapter with its foot is a well balanced solution to fit "larger" lenses like EF 100 2.0 or the 100mm macro on these tiny bodies
And I will tell you why I like mirrorless: The reliable AF is a vast improvement at least for me because AF points on SLRs were literally never where I needed them. And I like the EVF for shooting video in some situations.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

jedy said:


> If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.


I agree but people whine so much about crop.
"I paid for a full-frame camera. Why should I have to crop to get certain features? Waah!"


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> That's simply marketing for the investors: the board always has to impress the shareholders with the newest, greatest, most advanced product


Do investors even know the difference between APS-C and full-frame?
They seem to be mesmerized by colorful charts.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

jam05 said:


> I don't know what market region you live in, but the M50 and M6mk 2 dominate the small camera markets in most major regions by far. So much so that Canon has expanded its camera market share. Canon remains the big dog on the block. No other manufacturer is even close in camera share.


Sony a6400 sells very well also.
People love to talk about Fuji in APS-C but they are nowhere close.
(At least Fuji has "medium format" to brag about.)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 11, 2021)

samirj said:


> they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )


I am not sure that Canon has a lot of incentive to make a cheaper version of one of their best-selling cameras.


----------



## 1D4 (Jun 11, 2021)

> Reading between the lines, it doesn’t appear that an APS-C RF mount camera will be the EOS 7D series replacement a lot of people are hoping for.



I refuse to believe this and await the R7 to back up and supplement my R5. Thanks.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 11, 2021)

For me an affordable full frame camera with IBIS would be interesting. I do not care about a high frame rate at all. Three frames per second are okay for me. If there was such a camera for $1000, I would buy it and also buy the 800mm f/11 lens. Even APS-C combined with 800mm would be interesting. Imagine how much reach it will give you. Having IBIS and the option for a cheap 800mm lens are the only advantage I see in the mirrorless system. It would only be my second body though.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> I thought I preferred an OVF until I got an R5. That body will make you forget OVF (and DSLR’s in general) very, very quickly…


Perhaps the answer is for you to lend me an R5 so I can find out ?


----------



## Tangent (Jun 11, 2021)

Adelino said:


> I love my RP but I want more, looking forward to an RP upgrade!


key upgrade features for me would be IBIS and ergonomics/control layout less M50-ish. Plus better DR and battery life. But keep the size small.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 11, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I would certainly be interested in a crop R series camera. In the past year I've started doing Birds and BIF and tried a number of camera lens combinations. The main locations where I have been able to shoot keep me a fair distance from the birds, so I ultimately chose the Olympus 100-400mm lens to use on my E-m1 II, giving me the equivalent 200-800mm reach. The Canon 100-400 paired with an R6 I was able to use did not give me enough reach. The new RF 100-500 was a very impressive lens but beyond my budget (especially as I would need a new R series camera to go with it.) Tried an M6 II, but way too small for my taste when paired with any non-M lens.
> 
> I know lots of folks on forums don't get the appeal of an APS-C R camera. It's about reach. You don't need special "crop R" lenses. It's about reach.


You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050


----------



## Wanderingsmog (Jun 11, 2021)

Could an aps-c have a speed booster that fits inside the mount but could be removed for more reach?


----------



## EduPortas (Jun 11, 2021)

Seems like Canon is pulling a Nikon and directing their potential APS-C buyers to the bigboy RF mount.

Worked for Nikon.

Canon "M" users can't be feeling good about this, but is was sadly expected. No camera company can sustain four different mounts
at the same time: EF, EF-S, M and RF.

They want to funnel everyone to RF, just like Nikon to Z.

The "one mount to rule them all" strategy.


----------



## Finn (Jun 11, 2021)

An updated RP with non-crop 4K24 would be nice cheap b-cam for certain things. With the recent revelations about the R3 most likely being a lower MP camera (20-30) I was kinda disappointed. I was really hoping for a R5 on steroids. Then again, if the R3 has internal 6K RAW and oversampled 4K that doesn't overheat...I might buy. Really interested to see how the eye-focus assist works. I could see it being useful for certain things.

Really loving the 45MP R5 after the latest firmware updates. It has quirks, but they are easily worked around in my workflow.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> *I know nothing about product development or product strategy* _but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy._



Well there you go. Clearly Canon wants to consolidate their mirrorless lens lineup into one system, the same way Sony and Nikon and literally every other major manufacturer has done. EOS M ended up being a stopgap and that's really all there is to it.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 11, 2021)

jeanluc said:


> I thought I preferred an OVF until I got an R5. That body will make you forget OVF (and DSLR’s in general) very, very quickly…


I miss the "always on" aspect of the OVF on my R5.


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 11, 2021)

EduPortas said:


> Seems like Canon is pulling a Nikon and directing their potential APS-C buyers to the bigboy RF mount.
> 
> Worked for Nikon.


Yes, the potential Nikon APS-C buyers moved to the RF mount.


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 11, 2021)

Having one mount has several advantages not only for Canon but for the user as well. It offers much more flexibility being able to use a lens on all bodies and vice versa and not having to plan with a completely separate system in case you want to use a crop camera as well. It also and especially saves weight when you‘re traveling and want to shoot FF and crop using the same optics (at least to some extent). Not to forget that the competition / Sony and Nikon already offer one mount for crop and FF. Maybe Canon will finally keep the EF-M mount and system (at least for a while) as a special and unique offering with regard to size and portability…


----------



## amorse (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I assume the strategy you describe is what canon is banking on, but I wonder if that’s how it commonly plays out. If I was a GM in canon I would question throwing out the investment made in developing EOS M, in the hope of developing upgraders path. That definitely worked for EF-S to EF but will it still play in today’s market?


No idea if that's how it commonly plays out, but it is definitely how it played out for me, and I within my ultra tiny sample set, I can say that most of the full frame users I know ended up upgrading from an APS-C body to full frame within the same manufacturer in order to maintain access to a lens that also worked for full frame. Looking over other manufacturers ranges and outside of RF specifically, I think there are a few good candidates for lenses people may buy while owning an APS-C camera and wanting to keep as they go into full frame. For instance, the Sigma/Tamron super zooms are pretty reasonable and not uncommon to see on a crop body, and similarly with Nikon's 200-500. Replicating that relationship on RF may hold some potential for encouraging buyers to stay within the ecosystem.

I'm not sure the EOS-M is really aimed with a broader upgrade path to full frame. M has a really strong following and is really well suited as a compact camera kit where you can still change lenses. I think the M is Canon's answer for people who want a really compact camera kit, or a vacation camera - i.e. people who are going somewhere new and want to take better pictures than a cell phone but also don't want to break the bank and don't want to lug around a huge kit. While there have been plenty of rumours of EOS-M's demise, it does fit a niche that RF or EF isn't particularly well suited to at the moment. I could see them keeping EOS-M alive to keep filing the compact camera niche going.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 11, 2021)

Completely sad and imho wrong strategy!!!

Pro level aps-c is hard needed!
for 1200-1500€! great 20-24MP Sensor, ibis, 1-2 cards, 10-15 fps, great EVF and silent option!

Nikon, Sony and Fuji do this! Canon needs to start again where the 7D/II ended!!!


----------



## Adrianf (Jun 11, 2021)

Canon have let the amateur nature photographers badly. The 7Dii has never been replaced. They now have an opportunity - to stick a crop sensor like the one in the M6ii in an R6, concentrate on stills and lower the movie spec.


----------



## rbtree (Jun 11, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> 
> Agreed. Expecially since the RF 70-200 doesn't accept extenders. I have an R5, 5D IV and 7D II, which is aging. Granted, it will be a long time before I replace my fullish EF lens kitty, but eventually, maybe. It would be nice to not have to use the EF-R adaptor, and simplify things. But the $ involved? A lot! I did splurge and got the above lens and 24-105 f/4 when I got the R5, my first ever mirrorless. It ain't perfect, but it's danged good. still learning it!! (Both those RF lenses duplicated my 2 EF's.. though my 24-70 f/2.8 Tammy G2 is faster and has less zoom range, and is big..but danged good! )


----------



## rbtree (Jun 11, 2021)

Adrianf said:


> Canon have let the amateur nature photographers badly. The 7Dii has never been replaced. They now have an opportunity - to stick a crop sensor like the one in the M6ii in an R6, concentrate on stills and lower the movie spec.


Agreed, Adrian.... if they do replace it, hoping it has two card slots. But, come to think of it, I only use one... as I am usually not on any kind of shoot where I would be badly upset if I lost any images.


----------



## rbtree (Jun 11, 2021)

Ruined said:


> APS-C RF mount is 100% upsell marketing strategy and makes zero practical sense. It's the hope they they will sell someone a cheap RF mount aps-c and that person will invest in expensive RF lenses - then eventually an expensive full frame RF body. Trying to recreate their EF-S marketing upsell strategy in other words
> 
> The main difference and problem is EF-M and options from other brands are a much smarter small sensor choice than RF APS-C if you know what you are doing


Yes, but those options would require lenses that aren't in a person's quiver, unless he shoots either already....


----------



## Ruined (Jun 11, 2021)

rbtree said:


> Yes, but those options would require lenses that aren't in a person's quiver, unless he shoots either already....


But there isn't any advantage to APS-C for an existing RF owner, so no reason to buy. R6 owner better off selling their R6 for an R5 rather than adding apsc - and R5 owners can crop and get the same effect while also being able to not crop for other purposes which obv apsc can't do

The reason mirrorless in general got popular is because it enabled small lenses with crop sensors. RF mount defeats much of the purpose of this since it needs to be compatible with larger diameter of FF lenses. Canon is basically giving the mirrorless portable market to Fuji etc if they go with RF apsc


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 11, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


I also have no idea why the heck a person would want a Canon aps-c when the RP is $999. Do people really want to save some cash so bad they downgrade to a massively inferior sensor? I am on a fixed income of $600 a month, and I won't touch an aps-c; I will buy a used full frame before I buy a brand new aps-c. I guess people who have never shot with full frame and always owned rebels are ok with the inferioprity not knowing better, but I think it is still madness for Canon to make one. A $700 aps-c RF REBEL vs. a $999 RP full frame, with the RP still having more features? GTFO, I will pay the extra $300 every time so I have a "big boy camera." I stopped using point-n-shoots and aps-c when I decided that *my images matter.*
People (Rebel users) seem to think that those cheap prime lenses and that turd-like L kit zoom will still be as useful when they get a full frame, but that is seldom the truth, since by the time most people pony up for full frame, the L lens bug has already bitten them hard. For many, even the chintzy 24-105 f4 becomes too cheap to put on a full frame. Besides, we all know the 24-105 is an L imposter and a marketing tool for camera peasants.
To be fair, I guess it makes sense Canon would go through the boring motions of making a standard subpar Rebel aps-c just so camera peasants can play with the genius RF lenses, but a pro-level 7d-ish camera seems stupid, absolutely stupid, given how small and inexpensive entry-level full frame bodies are now.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 12, 2021)

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.

It is a wonderful camera.

Especially for street photography...when mated to either the 22mm or 11-22mm IS lenses...the size and volume and weight and picture quality offered by either of these combinations is, IMHO, 'tied for first' at least...with any other system.

The ignorance on display in some of the posts here is at times startling...I sincerely hope it is not willful ignorance.


----------



## Chig (Jun 12, 2021)

samirj said:


> they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )


Deleting the video features would not reduce the cost of making the camera as these are just software programs so it would still be an expensive camera sadly . Personally video is of little interest to me though.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 12, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Alright, calm down.


I am calm


----------



## Chig (Jun 12, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050


5 fps is the maximum frame rate with the 5DsR and not very good autofocus compared with my 7Dii and 50mp cropped is only 20mp. 
Personally for shooting birds in flight my 7Dii is much better and what I'd like to see is a R7 based on the R3 integrated vertical grip body with a cropped stacked sensor of between 30 and 35mp and I'd be happy to pay similar price to the R6 for one or even more if it's really good and I suspect many other wildlife and sports shooters would too.


----------



## Madbox (Jun 12, 2021)

Nope. I can't imagine anything truly affordable about a RF mount camera. You might get a cheap body, but then you have to buy lenses, and those certainly aren't cheap in the RF mount by Canon. Release the damned EOS M5 Mark II so we don't have to lug around heavy RF mount glass bricks. If that can't happen then be done with it and let Fuji eat your lunch.


----------



## Chig (Jun 12, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.
> 
> It is a wonderful camera.
> 
> ...


I agree that the M6 ii is great for street / travel photography but it's not well suited to what I do which is bird photography and I'm hoping for an R7 camera very similar to the R3 with a cropped stacked sensor of about 30-35mp , no ibis , no AA filter and a similar price to the R6


----------



## Chig (Jun 12, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Really hope you're wrong about the aps-c body being tiny , I'm still hoping Canon make an aps-c version of the R3 and I'll order one as soon as it's been properly tested as this would be my dream camera for birding and sports


----------



## Madbox (Jun 12, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality.
> 
> That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.


I think I'm at 6 M mount lenses, a converted EF, and a couple converted Pentax. I get some damned good quality pictures, and I don't have to haul much heavier glass up a mountain. Using an RF mount camera doesn't make anyone a rockstar professional photographer who requires assistants and a van to haul their toys around. Using an M mount camera doesn't make you dull as a stump.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 12, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050


Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 12, 2021)

samirj said:


> they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )


But that would only make about a $100 difference in the price, not $1000. Once you have a camera that shoots at high frame rates, adding video is almost totally a firmware addition. You may need a bit more processing power and maybe a bigger FPGA, but $100 is an outside number.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can  not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.


For most people and uses you can do anything with a FF camera you can with a crop camera, the opposite is not true.

Now as always there are caveats, the main one raised in this forum is the reach limited scenario where you don’t have a long enough lens and are cropping a crop camera image so the pixel density isn’t there in a cropped ff image. The counter to that is if you want narrow apertures and shallow dof then finding them in crop lens options is harder and in some cases not possible.

As for more dof with a crop camera, that is fallacious, crop the ff image with the same aperture to the same fov and the dof is the same, or use a deeper aperture and a higher iso for the same dof and noise levels.

Smaller size and weight, and lower cost are other advantages of a crop camera, but the only photographic technicality they have is pixel density and then only if you are ’reach limited’.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> For most people and uses you can do anything with a FF camera you can with a crop camera, the opposite is not true.
> 
> Now as always there are caveats, the main one raised in this forum is the reach limited scenario where you don’t have a long enough lens and are cropping a crop camera image so the pixel density isn’t there in a cropped ff image. The counter to that is if you want narrow apertures and shallow dof then finding them in crop lens options is harder and in some cases not possible.
> 
> ...


Well, after taking many close up photos of flowers for over 30 years, I would say that you can not get many of the same photos with a FF camera that you get with a crop camera. Yes, your statement is correct, that if you crop the FF image to the same FOV the DOF is the same. Of course, what you fail to mention is that with a crop camera and an FF camera, you are usually not (if ever) standing in the same place, with the same distance to the subject and the same proportionate distances between subject and background. In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed. Similarly with a landscape, where you want the most DOF to get, let's say some flowers in the foreground around 30-32 inches from your camera, as well as your subject let's say 20 feet away, both in focus. With my Olympus crop I can get the shot at f/10 with my 12mm lens. My FF camera with my equivalent 24mm lens needs f/20 to get the shot. No tripod, probably no shot. 

I would not say that these are some sort of extreme examples. Nor is the need for more reach. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems in my opinion. I see nothing outrageous in that opinion.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For me an affordable full frame camera with IBIS would be interesting. I do not care about a high frame rate at all. Three frames per second are okay for me. If there was such a camera for $1000, I would buy it and also buy the 800mm f/11 lens. Even APS-C combined with 800mm would be interesting. Imagine how much reach it will give you. Having IBIS and the option for a cheap 800mm lens are the only advantage I see in the mirrorless system. It would only be my second body though.


I do not expect IBIS in any entry-level Canon camera.
For full-frame $2,000 might be that line but that also depends on the competition.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Wanderingsmog said:


> Could an aps-c have a speed booster that fits inside the mount but could be removed for more reach?


That already exists for both EF-M and RF-mounts.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Chig said:


> I agree that the M6 ii is great for street / travel photography but it's not well suited to what I do which is bird photography and I'm hoping for an R7 camera very similar to the R3 with a cropped stacked sensor of about 30-35mp , no ibis , no AA filter and a similar price to the R6


The combination of no IBIS and no AA filter will probably not happen since Canon has a patent to perform AA using IBIS like Pentax currently does.
You can turn them both off when you do not need them which seems like the best of both worlds.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera?


I think it is the opposite.
We can always add a focal reducer to a crop camera and turn it into a full-frame one.
The major trade-off is the switch from RF to EF lenses in full-frame mode but I will take that over cropped RF lenses.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

samirj said:


> they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )


I am not sure why people think 1080p would make everything so much cheaper with the high MP count of the sensor that we have today.
Getting 1080p out of a 30MP sensor is no easy task.
The bigger problem is that people whine so much about cropping.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

EduPortas said:


> Worked for Nikon


Nikon is taking a beating.
They are not the best example for Canon to follow.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.


It's not crop having no advantages over FF, its that RF APS-C having no advantages over either A) RF FF, or B) APS-C / m43 camera mount designed around its sensor size instead of FF sensor size

If you are already invested in RF with an R5/R6, the 45mp R5 can be cropped to APS-C size with no quality loss, and it also has the flexibility to be used at the FF sensor size. If you have the R6, you are better off trading it in for an R5 than buying a crop camera in addition to the R6.

If you don't have a camera yet and want crop, you are better off buying an APS-C or M4/3 camera whose lens mount does not have wasted space around the sensor like RF mount APS-C will, as that wasted space makes the lenses and camera unnecessarily larger.

Take a look at this RF mount R6 vs the Fuji APS-C . The APS-C RF is gonna have a ton of wasted space in comparison to camera mounts designed around a smaller sensor like the Fuji - because APS-C RF mount needs to be compatible with RF full frame lenses and will thus be about the same size as the R6's RF mount in this image in order to preserve that compatibility.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Well, after taking many close up photos of flowers for over 30 years, I would say that you can not get many of the same photos with a FF camera that you get with a crop camera. Yes, your statement is correct, that if you crop the FF image to the same FOV the DOF is the same. Of course, what you fail to mention is that with a crop camera and an FF camera, you are usually not (if ever) standing in the same place, with the same distance to the subject and the same proportionate distances between subject and background. In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed. Similarly with a landscape, where you want the most DOF to get, let's say some flowers in the foreground around 30-32 inches from your camera, as well as your subject let's say 20 feet away, both in focus. With my Olympus crop I can get the shot at f/10 with my 12mm lens. My FF camera with my equivalent 24mm lens needs f/20 to get the shot. No tripod, probably no shot.
> 
> I would not say that these are some sort of extreme examples. Nor is the need for more reach. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems in my opinion. I see nothing outrageous in that opinion.


But as so often happens you are not fully adjusting for equivalence which does account for your examples and does take into account perspective (your position relative to the subject and background).

_" In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed."_​In that instance you raise the iso to get the same shutter speed, the increased sensor size means your noise characteristics are the same in both crop and FF shots and because you use the same shutter speed for the same exposure but enlarge the image less with the FF image you actually have less camera shake in the FF image.

Your second example is the same, just raise the iso to use the same shutter speed, the images are identical.

There is nothing you can do with a crop camera you can't replicate with equivalence with a FF camera, except the focal length limited pixel density.

I never said there wasn't value to smaller sensored systems, indeed I listed several advantage you didn't, but *image flexibility* is not one of them and that was the point I was replying to.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 12, 2021)

Chig said:


> 5 fps is the maximum frame rate with the 5DsR and not very good autofocus compared with my 7Dii and 50mp cropped is only 20mp.
> Personally for shooting birds in flight my 7Dii is much better and what I'd like to see is a R7 based on the R3 integrated vertical grip body with a cropped stacked sensor of between 30 and 35mp and I'd be happy to pay similar price to the R6 for one or even more if it's really good and I suspect many other wildlife and sports shooters would too.


sure, more fps is more better, just like more resolution is more better. 51mp 1.6x cropped is "only" 20mp, yes, which is the same resolution as the 7D2 and hence the point.

i have had no issues with 5fps and birds though. I had a 7d2 and never felt i needed its 10fps even though it sounded cool. But there is a problem with your argument, 'cause the R5 already got 12fps. And then what happens when the 200mp R5s comes out? Even cropped to 1.6x this would obliterate a 35mp crop sensor. APS-C RF mount just seems the wrong direction (other than to upsell people), high MP FF makes a lot more sense if you want "reach" with RF lenses. APS-C should be reserved for smaller lenses, with a smaller mount that doesn't have to support full frame diameter lenses - basically like Fuji does. And the APS-C-tailored smaller mount that Fuji uses does not prevent them from also have long telephotos i.e. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1388817-REG/fujifilm_xf_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_r.html

The 7d2 AF is great, but the 5dsr is no slouch since it uses 5d3 base AF with some added AF tweaks from the 1DX.

I decided against rebuying the 7d2 when I was getting back into long telephoto photography because i need an extra 5fps a whole lot less than the versatility of a full frame sensor. I could see 10fps being useful for a pro sports photographer who needs that single frame where the runner is crossing the tape. Otherwise, I just found a ton of near duplicate images to sift through.

Back on topic, APS-C RF mount seemless pointless other than an upsell tactic - and I guess for people who have an aversion to high MP FF cameras for some odd reason. Canon should come out with something to compete with smaller APS-C-tailored mount cameras that would be more useful, but they probably don't want to spend the money maintaining both RF and a complete mirrorless APS-C lens set in addition to the EF stragglers like myself.

Can you guess which camera is using a full frame mount and which one is using a APS-C reduced diameter mount? Before you cry foul that the R6 is FF, the 7D2 wasnt significantly different in size from its FF counterparts.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 12, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.
> 
> It is a wonderful camera.
> 
> ...


I own an R5 and an M6-II.

I actually use the M6-II more often.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Ruined said:


> The APS-C RF is gonna have a ton of wasted space in comparison to camera mounts designed around a smaller sensor like the Fuji


What you call wasted space I call room for more IBIS.
The R5 IBIS is next level in APS-C crop mode but that comes at the expense of a lot lower resolution than a native APS-C sensor would have.
The R5 and R6 probably have the best IBIS on any full-frame camera but APS-C mode is something else.


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 12, 2021)

It's about time. We have R5 + the holy trinity for a wedding purposes and my wife likes it a lot. As we sold 5DIV with all lens too, we are left with 70D as a backup and I feel that in case something happens, modern smartphone gets you a better results (in some situations). Becuse of the RP sensor having 6DII sensor heritage, I refuse to buy one as a backup. So either we wait for the new entry level R camera, or it is going to be a second-hand R.

Now an APS-C model. It was imo inevitable since the very beginning, that such camera would appear at certain point in time. I did not believe the arguments about a transition path not being important to users back then, I don't believe it nowadays either. With the dead-end of EF lens lineup, EOS-M is standing cut-off in the corner. 

I am not sure, why noone mentions the possibility of Canon (or other producer) to introduce a special RF APS-C lens designs, if it would allow to make a smaller / lighter lens. It would still provide you with the option to use big RF lens, the same way, EOS-M can use EF ones. I am well aware, that RF mount M6 III would be bigger, but still can be smaller than RF FF cameras.


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 12, 2021)

Kit. said:


> I miss the "always on" aspect of the OVF on my R5.


Why aren't the cameras with an OVF sold with an "Eco View Finder" badge?


josephandrews222 said:


> The ignorance on display in some of the posts here is at times startling...I sincerely hope it is not willful ignorance.


I believe it is related to many facets of the "paradox of choice/embarrassment of riches" phenomenon...


EOS 4 Life said:


> That already exists for both EF-M and RF-mounts.


I think he referred to an RF-M booster. Is such a "wideconverter" feasible?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jun 12, 2021)

The rumor of a very small body and an "R7" enthusiast camera, never really made much sense _combined_.
But any commitment to APS-C on RF mount is good news in long term. Even if it doesn't start with the "R7" type of camera that would make it attractive for me to move to mirrorless. The "R7" hopefully follows later.
Only danger I see, is if Canon thinks APS-C should only be for compact-like bodies without or with mediocre EVF, like EOS M6 II and various Sony cameras. Canon please, don't go thinking like that.


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 12, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> The rumor of a very small body and an "R7" enthusiast camera, never really made much sense _combined_.
> But any commitment to APS-C on RF mount is good news in long term. Even if it doesn't start with the "R7" type of camera that would make it attractive for me to move to mirrorless. The "R7" hopefully follows later.
> Only danger I see, is if Canon thinks APS-C should only be for compact-like bodies without or with mediocre EVF, like EOS M6 II and various Sony cameras. Canon please, don't go thinking like that.



Canon will innovate and provide a glasses, which will serve as a remote viewfinder, and allow even an eye AF


----------



## john1970 (Jun 12, 2021)

I wonder if Canon will discontinue the RP and the R and replace them with a single lower end camera at the $1300-1500 USD price point. Personally, that is what I would do for FF. You would have three non-gripped bodies at $1500, $2500, $3800 price points.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jun 12, 2021)

keep aps-c with ef-m and full frame with RF. easier to understand...


----------



## MartinVLC (Jun 12, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I do not expect IBIS in any entry-level Canon camera.
> For full-frame $2,000 might be that line but that also depends on the competition.


The Nikon Z5 for 1300-1400 €/$ is a very complete FF camera with IBIS. I´m sure you´ll get the Sony A7III for around 1600 €/$ once the A7IV is out. If Canon can´t come up with a capable FF camera with IBIS for something around 1800 €/$ they will be missing out on many enthusiasts and Pros on a budget.


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 12, 2021)

OMG just get on with it already. Tell us the resolution of the camera and move on to devloping the R1.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 12, 2021)

Dragon said:


> But that would only make about a $100 difference in the price, not $1000. Once you have a camera that shoots at high frame rates, adding video is almost totally a firmware addition. You may need a bit more processing power and maybe a bigger FPGA, but $100 is an outside number.


It might cost them more for the labor to remove the video features and redo menus to exclude video than just to leave it in, so the price might need to be higher.


----------



## EduPortas (Jun 12, 2021)

LensFungus said:


> Yes, the potential Nikon APS-C buyers moved to the RF mount.



Sounds good. But prices on RF lenses are still way up for the average APC-C buyers.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 12, 2021)

Finn said:


> An updated RP with non-crop 4K24 would be nice cheap b-cam for certain things. With the recent revelations about the R3 most likely being a lower MP camera (20-30) I was kinda disappointed. I was really hoping for a R5 on steroids. Then again, if the R3 has internal 6K RAW and oversampled 4K that doesn't overheat...I might buy. Really interested to see how the eye-focus assist works. I could see it being useful for certain things.
> 
> Really loving the 45MP R5 after the latest firmware updates. It has quirks, but they are easily worked around in my workflow.


There has been no "revelation" as to the resolution of the R3.


----------



## EduPortas (Jun 12, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Nikon is taking a beating.
> They are not the best example for Canon to follow.



They corrected their hemorrage with a solid MILC strategy
and are posting small but consistent growth.

That's a good example for any company to follow.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> There has been no "revelation" as to the resolution of the R3.


What, you mean that pure speculation on the part of armchair experts on a gossip forum is not a revelation from Canon?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 12, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What, you mean that pure speculation on the part of armchair experts on a gossip forum is not a revelation from Canon?


Yup! Yet so many take it as real. Silly. If it's posted on a forum somewhere, people think it must be real. Now I'm going to bite My Pillow.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 12, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> What you call wasted space I call room for more IBIS.
> The R5 IBIS is next level in APS-C crop mode but that comes at the expense of a lot lower resolution than a native APS-C sensor would have.
> The R5 and R6 probably have the best IBIS on any full-frame camera but APS-C mode is something else.


This may be controversial, but who cares about IBIS for photos? The high reach lenses have amazing optical IS systems. And other manufs probably have their IBIS more refined by this point than Canon


----------



## maulanawale (Jun 12, 2021)

Reading some of the posts it seems the old idea of starting with aps then “upgrade” to FF is still deeply engrained in most of our noggins. But I think it’s time we move on. For many disciplines requiring long reach, a crop sensor makes a lot of sense and if done well , a crop sensor means faster readout, better IBIS, smaller format specific lenses… It could also mean big $$ for Canon since the only real competition there is Fuji, and they lack the long fast glass. A successor to the 7D would make a lot of people happy I think.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 12, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup! Yet so many take it as real. Silly. If it's posted on a forum somewhere, people think it must be real. Now I'm going to bite My Pillow.


"It had to be true. I saw it on the internet." — Pierre Salinger in his press conference where he gave the cause of the explosion of TWA Flight 800 (quotation might be a slight paraphrase)


----------



## Dragon (Jun 12, 2021)

maulanawale said:


> Reading some of the posts it seems the old idea of starting with aps then “upgrade” to FF is still deeply engrained in most of our noggins. But I think it’s time we move on. For many disciplines requiring long reach, a crop sensor makes a lot of sense and if done well , a crop sensor means faster readout, better IBIS, smaller format specific lenses… It could also mean big $$ for Canon since the only real competition there is Fuji, and they lack the long fast glass. A successor to the 7D would make a lot of people happy I think.


I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 12, 2021)

Ruined said:


> This may be controversial, but who cares about IBIS for photos?


Anyone who would want to use a lightweight camera with a lightweight lens?

The camera rotation caused by pressing the shutter button cannot be compensated with an in-lens IS.


----------



## maulanawale (Jun 12, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.


Yes that's very true. I guess I'm just wishful thinking. . .


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I strongly suspect that better framerates and improved eye-AF come for free with a more modern sensor. Everything seems to point to the slow sensor readout being the bottleneck on the RP.
> 
> I sold my RP to get an R5, but I'd love to have something that size next to my R5 again. Just replacing the 6DII sensor with the R6 sensor would improve it a lot. When I compared the dragonfly photos I took with an RP and 1DXIII side by side, the 1DXIII pictures were all more detailed, despite having less megapixels.


Remember that the RP camera is a great value, but it is nerfed in a few ways. I own three of them for remote wildlife placements. Canon opted to not allow a silent shutter (my biggest frustration); used the old Rebel menu format for customizing settings; employs a sensor that was considered the weak point of the camera in which it was first introduced years prior; and a few other software choices that didn't have anything to do with expense. Again, it's still a great value at 40 percent the cost of the R6.

Using a full frame sensor that has 2014 full frame quality gives it very roughly the image quality of a current APS-C sensor, yet doesn't require Canon to spend gajillions retooling factories and designing an entirely new set of lenses, thus dividing its economies of scale. So it kind of makes sense to not do APS-C at all. It used to be a big cost difference in sensor production, but that is lessened now due to a much lower percentage of wafers being ruined during production.

So I'm skeptical that the APS-C development work is for the sorts of cameras people on this forum would use. I could see them making a crop sensor version of their Vixia video cameras, whose updates have been pretty lame for the last few years, or definitely some of their security cameras. That all makes sense.


----------



## JohnC (Jun 12, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:
> 
> 1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then
> 
> ...


Wow, that’s an interesting viewpoint but one I find hard to agree with at first read. While I’m sure Canon has made mistakes I. Their own eyes I don’t think they have made huge ones, especially in regards to their RF offering. I’m sure many would have loved to see just what you suggest but the reality is that they are staying sold out of RF technology on many fronts. Now some of that can be assigned to current widespread supply chain issues but the sales numbers are definitely there for Canon based on the ones I’ve seen. That has to be measured as an overall success not a huge mistake I would think.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Bahrd said:


> I think he referred to an RF-M booster. Is such a "wideconverter" feasible?


I guess it is not feasible since none exists but it is possible.
It would be like a teleconverter in reverse.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 12, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> That's exactly what happened to me...
> 
> After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my *FULLFRAME* lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...
> 
> ...


Nope. I spent nearly 6 years shooting apsc and in that time bought high quality FF lenses which with an adapter i can now use on my FF body while still using them on my 7d2 when i need the extra pixel density


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.


7D has never cost as much as the 5D.
It usually does cost around the 6D.
I have also not seen people asking for 8K video.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> Remember that the RP camera is a great value, but it is nerfed in a few ways. I own three of them for remote wildlife placements. Canon opted to not allow a silent shutter (my biggest frustration); used the old Rebel menu format for customizing settings; employs a sensor that was considered the weak point of the camera in which it was first introduced years prior; and a few other software choices that didn't have anything to do with expense. Again, it's still a great value at 40 percent the cost of the R6.


RP is basically a FF M50 and it was aimed at the same people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:
> 
> 1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then
> 
> ...


I think it’s very unrealistic to suggest that Canon ‘didn’t think through’ the mount design for EF-M and RF. Both are optimized for the size of the sensor behind them and, in the case of EF-M, for small camera bodies.

You’re suggesting that Canon should have provided an ‘easy’ upgrade path from APS-C MILC to FF MILC, i.e., one that doesn’t require an immediate outlay for new lenses. Canon is not interested in making things easy, they are interested in extracting the most revenue possible from their customer base.

How much data do you have about purchases of Canon FF bodies and lenses by owners of Canon APS-C cameras? Canon has ample amounts of those data, every imaging product registration collects demographic and other product ownership information. Most buyers never purchase more than the lens sold with the camera (logical inference based on the 1.4:1 ratio of Canon lens and body sales).

Of those that do upgrade from APS-C to FF, I suspect most buyers willing to make the jump from EOS M to EOS R would not find the inability to use their EF-M lenses on a FF body to be a significant impediment. How many of those that upgraded from an APS-C DSLR to a FF DSLR owned EF lenses prior to the upgrade? We don’t know that…but Canon does.

Bottom line, incompatible MILC mounts is likely not a substantial upgrade barrier, and means Canon actually sells more lenses, meaning more profit.

More importantly, there’s an ‘easy’ upgrade path —a simple adapter— for both EF-S and EF lenses to mount on any Csnon MILC, and the Canon DSLR owners represent a massive base of potential upgraders to MILC lines.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 12, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup! Yet so many take it as real. Silly. If it's posted on a forum somewhere, people think it must be real. Now I'm going to bite My Pillow.


As long as you don't bite Mr. Lindell...


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:
> 
> 1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then
> 
> 2) Giving the RF a 20mm film-to-flange instead of 18mm like the EF-M.


Canon clearly thought it through.
The EF-M mount was meant for smaller cameras with smaller lenses and is the #1 selling mirrorless APS-C line,
The RF mount is the same size as the EF mount and it is the #2 selling mirrorless full-frame line.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 12, 2021)

john1970 said:


> I wonder if Canon will discontinue the RP and the R and replace them with a single lower end camera at the $1300-1500 USD price point. Personally, that is what I would do for FF. You would have three non-gripped bodies at $1500, $2500, $3800 price points.


I can't see a reason to do that instead of just lowering the prices of those two cameras.
A full-frame model below the RP does not make much sense to me, but I could see one slightly above it and a price reduction.
On the other hand, R and RP are selling pretty well since Canon dropped their prices.
If I were in charge at Canon then I would be tempted to only introduce more expensive models instead of undercutting sales of already well-selling models with cheaper ones.


----------



## Skux (Jun 12, 2021)

If they're going to make affordable RF cameras, they also need to make affordable RF lenses.


----------



## Chig (Jun 13, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The combination of no IBIS and no AA filter will probably not happen since Canon has a patent to perform AA using IBIS like Pentax currently does.
> You can turn them both off when you do not need them which seems like the best of both worlds.


I didn't know Canon made any cameras with the option to turn the AA filter on and off but I'd be happy to have that option.


----------



## Chig (Jun 13, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.


Wouldn't bother this member of the 7D crowd if it's a really great camera as it's much cheaper to buy medium length telephoto lenses (e.g. EF100-400 ii and RF100-500) and and a crop camera than FF with the super telephoto lenses such as EF600 f/4 or RF600f/4
If Canon make a cropped version of the R3 and price it about the same as an R5 I'd buy it and so would many others in the 7D crowd I suspect.
My 7Dii was a bargain camera but that doesn't mean I bought it cause I couldn't afford FF
Also Canon could easily just fit the 32.5 mp sensor from the 90D into an R6 and sell it for say $2000 USD but I'd rather they built a baby R3 with a 30-35mp version of it's stacked sensor and charged a bit more as it would be the best possible birding camera.


----------



## justonemore (Jun 13, 2021)

Me and my 100-500 are ready for an APSC


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 13, 2021)

Ruined said:


> This may be controversial, but who cares about IBIS for photos? The high reach lenses have amazing optical IS systems. And other manufs probably have their IBIS more refined by this point than Canon


I care about IBIS for photos. I have lots of lenses that do not have IS. When I finally get back into RF lenses, the first ones I buy will not have IS (RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, and RF 28-70mm f/2L). As I get older, my hands get shakier. I often shoot in low light and would rather not turn up ISO so much to get a faster shutter speed. So I care about it. The next body I buy will have IBIS to aid in my stills photography.


----------



## Maru (Jun 13, 2021)

SUNDOG04 said:


> More affordable than an R6? Hoping so. I primarily do landscape and see no compelling reason to pay the extra $500 or so that an R6 costs over a Z6II. As great as the the RF lenses are, the fast ones not affordable for me, nor do much good for landscape work. I prefer the Nikkor S 24-70 f4 and their great S50 f1.8 to what I see from Canon. My mind is open, not wishing to buy right now, and anxiously waiting to see what Canon delivers.


Agreed...many will not agree here but canon has killed 1k-2k market on RF and they dont have any intention to fix it...


----------



## Maru (Jun 13, 2021)

MartinVLC said:


> What I don´t understand is, that Canon leaves the entire segment of enthusiasts and pros on a budget to Sony and Nikon.
> 
> Sony has the A7III for 1800 €/$ and Nikon has the Z5, Z6 and Z6II all of them very capable cameras between 1300-1800 €/$. Canon only has the EOS R (slow, without IBIS, without 2nd cardslot, ...), that in my opinion is clearly overpriced compared to Sony and Nikon and aswell to the EOS RP.
> 
> ...


Yes they dont care about this market segment and probably want us to give up


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 13, 2021)

I am one of those eagerly waited for Canon to release a 7D2 successor and the rumor that Canon still not planning to make one in near future is a bad news for me. In regards to EOS R my guess was also there will not be a Mark II My guess is based on the EOM. There was no EOS M Mark II. Now some may say the EOS M2 is mark 2 but from a naming perspective it is not a EOS M Mark II


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 13, 2021)

amorse said:


> I don't know, I can see value in having the RF APS-C system as creating a pathway to full frame and keeping people within the ecosystem as they transition. There are a number of lower cost full frame lenses which could realistically be purchased by a cost-conscious RF APS-C camera user who would want to continue use of the lenses on a new full frame camera when they upgrade. As a few examples, I could see an APS-C RF mount buyer also picking up an RF 35mm macro, or the 85mm macro, or even the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1.
> 
> Speaking from my own experience, when I owned a Canon 450D I had only 3 lenses - the kit lens (I think it was an 18-55), a Sigma 10-20, and a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. That Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 was the only lens I owned that would work with a full frame EF camera, but it was enough to tip the scales and get me to invest a 6D, despite the lens being my least-used lens at the time. People can be weird about their perception of sunk investment, so if people do buy any full frame RF lenses for an RF APS-C camera, I think they may become quite a bit more likely to buy a full frame RF body to prevent the perception of lost investment. With that said, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.


I completely agree. Alot of people who think they might be interested wouldn't start with the M series because it won't be compatible with anything else. . An entry level RF with some cheap lens is a gateway into later selling full frame and L lens. I too was concious when I first bought a Canon APS-C to buy EF lens rather than EF-S lens. I'm sure Canon will also start releasing light , maybe plasticky but reasonably good lens to go with this RF APS-C camera. I'm sure a 7D replacement is also under consideration but its probably not a first priority, it would need to be fairly weatherproof. This APS-C may be less so.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 13, 2021)

goldenhusky said:


> I am one of those eagerly waited for Canon to release a 7D2 successor and the rumor that Canon still not planning to make one in near future is a bad news for me. In regards to EOS R my guess was also there will not be a Mark II My guess is based on the EOM. There was no EOS M Mark II. Now some may say the EOS M2 is mark 2 but from a naming perspective it is not a EOS M Mark II


Canon has stated that there will not be an M, R, or RP Mark II.
That is not how they name things.
That does not mean that they will not make an acceptable replacement camera with a different name.
EOS M is legendary for the 12-bit RAW video in Magic Lantern.
Magic Lantern for the 5D is kind of how we got 8K RAW in the R5.
For that to happen in an EOS M it would have to have either extremely low resolution or an expensive CF Express card.
EOS M is kind of a budget camera line and that would be a major departer but there are a lot of EOS M fans who would pay for a modern cinema camera that fits in a pocket for those of us who neither see Sigma fp or Fx3 as cinema cameras nor think full-frame lenses fit in a pocket.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 13, 2021)

Chig said:


> Wouldn't bother this member of the 7D crowd if it's a really great camera as it's much cheaper to buy medium length telephoto lenses (e.g. EF100-400 ii and RF100-500) and and a crop camera than FF with the super telephoto lenses such as EF600 f/4 or RF600f/4
> If Canon make a cropped version of the R3 and price it about the same as an R5 I'd buy it and so would many others in the 7D crowd I suspect.
> My 7Dii was a bargain camera but that doesn't mean I bought it cause I couldn't afford FF
> Also Canon could easily just fit the 32.5 mp sensor from the 90D into an R6 and sell it for say $2000 USD but I'd rather they built a baby R3 with a 30-35mp version of it's stacked sensor and charged a bit more as it would be the best possible birding camera.


Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 13, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:
> 
> 1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then
> 
> ...


Actually, the EF-M mount is a bit wider than the Sony mount so it would work for FF. I don't think Canon ever had any intention of M-lens interchangeability. The M line is about small and portable and the R line is much more industrial. Your wish is kind of like wanting the tires on your Smart car to be interchangeable with the tires on your Ram pickup. The fact that I can attach my EF 800L to my M5 and it actually works is impressive, but in that instance it is still a Smart car with pickup tires .


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 13, 2021)

amorse said:


> No idea if that's how it commonly plays out, but it is definitely how it played out for me, and I within my ultra tiny sample set, I can say that most of the full frame users I know ended up upgrading from an APS-C body to full frame within the same manufacturer in order to maintain access to a lens that also worked for full frame. Looking over other manufacturers ranges and outside of RF specifically, I think there are a few good candidates for lenses people may buy while owning an APS-C camera and wanting to keep as they go into full frame. For instance, the Sigma/Tamron super zooms are pretty reasonable and not uncommon to see on a crop body, and similarly with Nikon's 200-500. Replicating that relationship on RF may hold some potential for encouraging buyers to stay within the ecosystem.
> 
> I'm not sure the EOS-M is really aimed with a broader upgrade path to full frame. M has a really strong following and is really well suited as a compact camera kit where you can still change lenses. I think the M is Canon's answer for people who want a really compact camera kit, or a vacation camera - i.e. people who are going somewhere new and want to take better pictures than a cell phone but also don't want to break the bank and don't want to lug around a huge kit. While there have been plenty of rumours of EOS-M's demise, it does fit a niche that RF or EF isn't particularly well suited to at the moment. I could see them keeping EOS-M alive to keep filing the compact camera niche going.


That’s how I see it too and wrote before. The M System as a special but limited (lens options) offering with regard to compact size & portability, and then RF with FF and higher grade APS C option(s) as well (and much more (and often bigger) lenses to choose from). 
I could image Canon will wait then how the reception of this will be and how the M system fares in terms of sales, and eventually still shut it down if it’s not really profitable enough to keep along the RF FF and APS-C options.


----------



## Fotofriend (Jun 13, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Actually, the EF-M mount is a bit wider than the Sony mount so it would work for FF. I don't think Canon ever had any intention of M-lens interchangeability. The M line is about small and portable and the R line is much more industrial. Your wish is kind of like wanting the tires on your Smart car to be interchangeable with the tires on your Ram pickup. The fact that I can attach my EF 800L to my M5 and it actually works is impressive, but in that instance it is still a Smart car with pickup tires .


It’s not just about diameter and flange size but about the electronic lens-body communication as well; in this regard the EF-M mount (like EF as well) is also significantly more limited than the newer RF mount


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 13, 2021)

A few months ago I suggested the following line-up for Canon: 

Pro Level: 
- R1 
- R5/ R5s (high Res)

Semi-pro Level: 
- R6 
- R7 (direct 7d successor --> only to be released with continued high demand by Canon users)

"Cheap" segment:
- R8 (Eos R successor) 
- R9 (RP successor) 
- R10 (APS-C model) 

Now, obviously I missed the R3, but other than that I think this line-up would still make sense. I'd also add an video-centric R5c to this line-up. I think the naming scheme with numbers will replace the name EOS R and EOS RP. 

Now to the "cheap" options, because this thread is all about those: 
The R10 would replace the xxxxD, xxxD, xxD line all at once. There won't be million rebels to sell, so it makes sense to merge those lines to a single line. Its job would be to attract new customers and people on a budget. 

The RP (here R9) successor would attract people to full-frame. To keep it cheap, it lags several things such as IBIS... 

Imho, The EOS R successor (here R8) is very crucial because it would sit between the RP successor and the very pricy cameras such as the R6 and others. The very cheap and "aggressively priced" RP won´t earn a lot of money for Canon. The EOS R successor would attract a lot customers (enthusiast with money as well as a "back-up" for pros) and would attract people who want "a little more" than the RP offers. It actually bridges the line-up towards the pro models. Therefore, this camera should be a hit. My wish would be: 

Take the EOS R and... 

- bump MP to 32-34mp (34mp would give us 13,28MP in crop mode, which is good/ great) 
- 10 FPS with full auto-focus (mechanical & electronic shutter)
- better auto-focus (sill underneath of R5/ R6)
- IBIS (if not too expensive)
- improved 4k (no crop or different options such as [email protected] and @60fps)
- maybe replace the Touch Bar (most people hate, I like it...)

This package would attract a lot of people. 


so, with the release of the "new affordable camera", I hope they'll name it R9 and my scheme will become reality I'm very much in the market for a direct successor of the EOS R.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Your parallel isn't a great one because there's all sorts of huge reasons why Ram pickup tires on a smart would require total redesign of the Smart, and compromise it severely.
> 
> In contrast what compromise is my suggestion entailing? Would a few EF-M lenses have had to be a bit wider at the base than the lens barrel? Would any M bodies be forced to be taller? And if so would that compromise the M system to the point it just wouldn't be attractive any more? Honest questions, I haven't checked the exact specs.


I made the comparison, because the primary drive behind the APS-c R discussion comes from enthusiasts using (primarily) the 7D II and a few using XXD bodies who want "extra reach" for long lenses and also don't want to pay the price for full frame. The 7D and the XXD bodies are full sized SLRs and as such can be used to swing a supertelephoto lens just as well as a FF body. The M bodies are comparatively tiny (i.e. Smart Car) and even though they will fit and drive the big EF lenses, they are hugely impractical for big lenses. I use my M5 with a Tamron 18-400 (which is very small for its FL) and that is about the upper limit of practicality. Even the R5 is marginally too small when attached to an 800L. I think Canon is perfectly aware of this reality, hence the R3, which is clearly big and strong enough to work well with big lenses. I don't think we know yet whether Canon will abandon the M line and move everything to the R mount, but one thing is certain, Canon is selling a LOT more M50s that Nikon is selling Z50s so my sense is that the M line will be around for quite some time. When you are paying $12-15k for lenses, arguing over $1 or 2k for the camera to use them makes little sense to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> There are three problems with your argument:
> 
> 1) People in photography are typically DYING to buy another lens. You don't have to trick them or force them into it. Rather than force them to buy a second normal lens with their second-format body, let them keep using their old normal lens and let them splash out on a speccy special lens instead.
> 
> ...


Before delving into specifics, I’ll reiterate that your claim that Canon ‘didn’t think through’ the parameters of the two MILC mounts and consider users moving between them is simply ludicrous. You may think they made the wrong decision, but if you really believe they didn’t consider interoperability in their mount designs, you’re living in an alternate reality.

All of your arguments are purely speculative, based on your opinion of what buyers want and what they would have done or will do. You’re totally ignoring the fact that Canon has mountains of data on what buyers actually did.

The M line is almost a decade old. The EOS R came out nearly 3 years ago, the more affordable EOS RP came out over two years ago. Canon knows with high accuracy how many EOS M line owners bought an EOS R line body. Likewise, they know how many APS-C and FF DSLR owner bought a FF MILC. They know how many APS-C DSLR owners bought FF DSLRs on which their EF-S lenses wouldn’t mount). They know how many and what types of lenses those people had before the upgrade to FF, and what lenses they bought subsequently. You…have an opinion. You can bring your opinion to a data fight, but you’re not going to win.

Personally, I suspect only a tiny fraction of APS-C owners upgrade to FF. I suspect most of Canon’s FF MILC sales are to people who owned DSLRs (and their lenses are easily adapted).

People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.

People who can’t afford a FF MILC lens aren’t going to buy the body either? Well, so what? First of all, Canon wants serial customers for their high end gear (any FF setup is high end). The loss of someone who can’t afford the kit lens isn’t a big loss in that context. Second, those people could buy the body and an RF 50/1.8 for relatively little additional outlay. 

Using any lens on any body is a selling point? Nikon DSLRs have that ‘very attractive sales point’ and Canon DSLRs don’t. Who has sold more? Clearly, THAT _didn’t_ sell (a perfect example of data trumping your opinion). 

Unifying the mounts would be the tail wagging the dog. Your suggestion that the EF-M mount could have been bigger to match future RF would mean bigger M bodies and bigger M lenses. Both contravene a major selling point of the M line. Canon should compromise the M line for the relatively few people who will upgrade to FF? That’s silly. Clearly the M line is a success, Canon’s decisions were spot on there.

Conversely, making the RF mount match the EF-M mount would constrain the R optics. Canon wisely chose to optimize both mounts for their intended markets, armed with the historical sales data to understand the consequences (presumably not significant) of those choices.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> As for more dof with a crop camera, that is fallacious, crop the ff image with the same aperture to the same fov and the dof is the same, or use a deeper aperture and a higher iso for the same dof and noise levels.


I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.


People will argue about this for ever but the truth boils down to this, the bigger the sensor the more light you collect per exposure. You can choose to use that additional light in several ways, shorter shutter speed, deeper aperture etc.

You can exactly replicate pretty much any image characteristics from a smaller sensored image with a larger sensor, but that is not true the other way around. You can take pictures with a ff sensor with image characteristics you cannot replicate with a crop camera, particularly narrow dof and subject separation. How much difference there is and how much that is worth to any of us as individuals is a choice only we as individuals can make, but they are physical characteristics of the crop and ff systems (and medium format and iPhones etc).

That isn’t to say crop cameras have no advantages, as I already stated they do, particularly size, weight and cost. And the one area where crop cameras can beat ff cameras is when you don’t have a focal length long enough even with your crop camera. Then the crop camera advantage is pixel density so in the comparison cropped images the crop camera image will have more detail.

in the multitude of genres I shoot I am practically never focal length limited so I shoot ff for the flexibility and choice more light gathering gets me, and don’t forget a ff sensor collects 2.6 times the light a crop sensor collects!


----------



## Dinesh262 (Jun 14, 2021)

Can anyone guess when the replacement of RP is coming???


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.


Maybe Canon can provide both in the form of R7 and R10 with R10 being the affordable model.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I'm not buying a crop R camera, either its an affordable R tupe full frame or forget it.



Then don't buy it. Others will.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Excited to see what that Aps-C camera is. I just hope it is mirrorless x0D with dual card slots.



If it's the smallest camera in the EOS R lineup it will not have dual card slots.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

mb66energy said:


> You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
> Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
> If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.
> 
> ...



That would probably make more sense if the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS could take an extender. But it can not.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I'm not buying a crop R camera, either its an affordable R tupe full frame or forget it.


I am not trying to get too personal here, but I am curious about what you would find acceptable in terms of specs and price.
I am not asking about your dream camera but the minimum it would get you to buy.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Rumourhasit said:


> It’s going to be a very interesting few years as Canon Revamp there lineup. Will they truly leave the popular M series behind or morph is into an small bodied APS-C with RF mount. Will they release a successor to the 7D, A crop frame in a reasonably pro body worthy of a single digit. What about the 90D, they are running out of numbers for the two digit line. The RPii as an entry level FF has a place but the eosR was only every a stop gap till the R5 came out so I doubt it will see a replacement



I'm guessing your "RP II" will be named the R9?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality.
> 
> That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.



Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

amfoto1 said:


> Not everyone wants or needs a full frame camera. Personally I use both full frame and APS-C Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. Different tools for different purposes. Each formats has its strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons.
> Someone who is rather specialized in what they shoot may only need one format or the other. But some if us shoot quite different types of subjects and can see benefits in having a choice of formats.
> Shooting a lot of sports (commercially) and wildlife (personally), I use crop sensor cameras about 10X more than I do full frame (architecture, landscapes, portraits, etc.) A number of my 24 lenses are L-series, too, and see their most frequent use on crop cameras. I long ago learned that tip quality glass was the most important aspect of photography and never felt any shame hanging a 500mm f/4L, 300mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L off a Canon 10D, 30D, 59D or 7D-series camera.
> For some of my shooting, I would find it very useful for an RF 100-500mm lens to "act like" a 160-800mm, simply by using it on an APS-C R-series camera. Yes, I could use a full frame camera and just add a 1.4X teleconverter... But that costs one stop of light and only gets me to 700mm. Also, yes I could just crop a full frame image to the equivalent of APS-C... But that costs resolution. To equal 24MP APS-C, the full frame image would need to be done with a 63MP camera. To equal a 32.5MP APS-C image, the crop would need to be done from an 80+MP camera. Since those don't exist (and will be quite expensive when they do), Canon please give me a good APS-C R-series!
> ...



Canon will sunset the APS-C DSLR models before they sunset the APS-C mirrorless M series. 

They haven't made a new EF-S lens in years. Other than the EF-S 35mm Macro and the compact EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 kit lens in 2017, there have been no other EF-S lenses since 2013 or 2014. EF-M had four new lenses surface between 2015 and 2018.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> That's exactly what happened to me...
> 
> After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my *FULLFRAME* lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...
> 
> ...


I hate when people tell beginners that they should consider future lenses before they buy their first cameras.
Most first-time buyers will never get serious enough to buy high-end lenses.
I stuck with Canon because I loved my first camera.
I have zero use for the lenses that I originally bought.

It is when someone wants to upgrade from beginner to enthusiast is when the lens system needs to be considered.
On the same note, most enthusiasts will never turn pro so they do not need to consider pro-grade lenses.
While many people do go pro with beginner, or enthusiast gear they make switch camera systems entirely when they have made enough money to buy new gear.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that.
> 
> But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.



Lot's of folks used a 70-200/2.8 on the 7D because it was a LOT cheaper than using a 300/2.8 on a FF (plus you still needed a 70-200 on another body for when the action came too close to the sideline).

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 = $1,700 + $2,100 = $3,800


1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II (+ 5D Mark IV + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II) = $6K + $6.1K (+ $3.5K + $2.1K) = $12,100 (+$5.6K) = $17,700

F/4 and slower lenses do not cut it shooting sports under the lights and in gyms.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am not trying to get too personal here, but I am curious about what you would find acceptable in terms of specs and price.
> I am not asking about your dream camera but the minimum it would get you to buy.



Better focusing than the 6d2 , eye focusing and more focus points, better sensor, better everything really. I don't mind if it still used an LPE6, instead having to buy new batteries . Better sensor, 2 card slots. Low noise in video like the song a7iii I think, which loooked ok at 250,000 iso or something, turning pitch dark almost into day. Lower noise in picturres without having touse noise reduction. So many things I could list, but obviously they can't put everything in that the R3 or R5 has, but they could come close and at a lower price point, more people would buy it.


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Before delving into specifics, I’ll reiterate that your claim that Canon ‘didn’t think through’ the parameters of the two MILC mounts and consider users moving between them is simply ludicrous. You may think they made the wrong decision, but if you really believe they didn’t consider interoperability in their mount designs, you’re living in an alternate reality.
> 
> All of your arguments are purely speculative, based on your opinion of what buyers want and what they would have done or will do. You’re totally ignoring the fact that Canon has mountains of data on what buyers actually did.
> 
> ...



I was one of those users, who require a so called upgrade path, though I can admit, that it is mostly a psychological barrier. Hence a long time ago I have predicted RF APS-C camera coming.

In no way I think, that EOS-M is an afterthought, I think it is exactly as Canon has planned it to be. No problem giving you a credit here.

But the recent situation still leads me to the following more broad point of view - what is the future of an APS-C at all? For me, the top APS-C model is EOS-M6 II. Now imagine, that in order for the focusing / video being faster, Canon will have to update the tech anyway. In a similar way, EOS R and RP could not provide the performance of R5/ R6 generation.

So let's imagine, Canon develops new APS-C sensor. And everybody wants it to be speedy in all areas .... including lens. My prediction is, that what we will see coming, is kind of M6 II successor. APS-C RF body, where initially you would be using your RF lens. Later on I can imagine creating RS lens - the same mount, just smaller.

How much smaller could such a camera be in comparison to the likes of R5/R6/RP or M6 III, that is the question. But let's reverse the question - could it be small enough, to be accepted by the EOS-M community as a next gen step for the M line?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

jedy said:


> If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.


This is a popular sentiment but there is no way a 50 MP FF sensor can be made as economically as a 30 MP APS-C sensor.
Then there is the added cost of RAM and heat management to handle the extra data.
It just does not make much sense to buy a full-frame camera if all someone wants to do is crop in.
As someone who owns MFT, APS-C, and FF It is getting harder to justify owning all three.
However, for someone who just wants one, I can't fathom why people think, "Why don't you just buy a more expensive camera with more expensive lenses?" is a good answer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

jedy said:


> If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.



The sensor resolutions needed to get there get out of hand rather quickly.

The $3,900 R5 at 45MP, for example, crops down to 17MP at APS-C dimensions. That's less resolution than the $1,700 20MP 7D Mark II.

To match the 32 MP APS-C 90D ($1,200) or M6 Mark II ($850 + $200 for the optional EVF)), you need a FF sensor with 82 MP. An 82 MP camera that can go 10 fps with a decent buffer size won't be anywhere in the neighborhood of $1,200, or even $2,200 or even $3,200.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 14, 2021)

An R2 with a dslr body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

jam05 said:


> Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.



Yet the M50 and M6 Mark II, along with other EOS M cameras now sell more units worldwide than all the Rebels. The Rebels are sitting o on store shelves. The M series are sitting in buyers homes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That would depend on what you mean by affordable.
> There is not much point in a cheap RF APS-C camera before cheap lenses arrive.
> People complained about the RP but owners were able to adapt EF lenses.
> Rebel users can already do that to the M line.
> ...



If RP users can adapt EF lenses to the RP (and they can), then cheap APS-C RF mount camera buyers can also do the same.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Tangent said:


> key upgrade features for me would be IBIS and ergonomics/control layout less M50-ish. Plus better DR and battery life. But keep the size small.


Going by the patents, Canin does have the tech to put IBIS in an RP body, but I'm not so sure how much that will add to the cost.
I could see the entry-level RP and R body cameras not having IBIS, especially since many people do not seem to care.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050



There's not as much flexibility in what you suggest as having two bodies with two lenses at the same time.

I shoot with FF 5D Mark IV for most of the time. Often I also use a 5D Mark III with a supplemental lens.

But when shooting sports/action my primary body is the 7D Mark II with a 70-200/2.8 (instead of a FF with a $6K 300/2.8), and the 5D Mark IV plays the role of the "short" body with a 24-105 or 24-70. I'll usually shoot a couple of thousand frames with the 7D Mark II and maybe 100-200 with the 5D Mark IV. Thus I'm wearing out a $1,700 camera instead of a $3,500 camera (prices when they were new).

At only 5 fps, the 5Ds R and 5Ds are not fast enough handling for the way sports shooters are expected to work these days.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Yet the M50 and M6 Mark II, along with other EOS M cameras now sell more units worldwide than all the Rebels. The Rebels are sitting o on store shelves. The M series are sitting in buyers homes.


Where did you get that?
I know DSLR sales are way down this year but I have not seen a breakdown by camera model.
Rebel T7 was Canon's best-selling camera before.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

EduPortas said:


> Seems like Canon is pulling a Nikon and directing their potential APS-C buyers to the bigboy RF mount.
> 
> Worked for Nikon.
> 
> ...



Most Canon M users don't think about all of this stuff. They do a little research, buy a camera and a couple of lenses, and then use them for at least four or five years before the stick their heads up to see what newer stuff is out there. They're not camera gearheads.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

dwarven said:


> Well there you go. Clearly Canon wants to consolidate their mirrorless lens lineup into one system, the same way Sony and Nikon and literally every other major manufacturer has done. EOS M ended up being a stopgap and that's really all there is to it.



A "stopgap" that is the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, unless the introduction of the R5 and R6 in 2020 has supplanted it, though with the mid-year introduction of those two models and the supply chain issues I doubt that could happen until 2021 at the earliest.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Tangent said:


> key upgrade features for me would be IBIS and ergonomics/control layout less M50-ish. Plus better DR and battery life. But keep the size small.



RP replacement will not have IBIS. Anything that does won't be nearly as small.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> A "stopgap" that is the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, unless the introduction of the R5 and R6 in 2020 has supplanted it, though with the mid-year introduction of those two models and the supply chain issues I doubt that could happen until 2021 at the earliest.


M50 has been hit by supply chain issues as well.
It would make sense for Canon to get the most expensive cameras out the door first.
However, they can't screw over the Costcos and Walmarts of the world that are selling M50. M200, and Rebel cameras.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> RP replacement will not have IBIS. Anything that does won't be nearly as small.


Canon has a patent to put IBI in small cameras.
We have not seen it in a camera but there are only two Canon cameras with IBIS at all right now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> But there isn't any advantage to APS-C for an existing RF owner, so no reason to buy. R6 owner better off selling their R6 for an R5 rather than adding apsc - and R5 owners can crop and get the same effect while also being able to not crop for other purposes which obv apsc can't do
> 
> The reason mirrorless in general got popular is because it enabled small lenses with crop sensors. RF mount defeats much of the purpose of this since it needs to be compatible with larger diameter of FF lenses. Canon is basically giving the mirrorless portable market to Fuji etc if they go with RF apsc



Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> M50 has been hit by supply chain issues as well.
> It would make sense for Canon to get the most expensive cameras out the door first.
> However, they can't screw over the Costcos and Walmarts of the world that are selling M50. M200, and Rebel cameras.



M50 is being affected by the supply chain issues in 2021, but in 2020 that was not so much the case until very late in the year. All of the M bodies were also in the catalog all year, not just shipping in very limited quantities from late July (R5) and August (R6) through the end of December.

Costco and Walmart are not where Canon is selling the majority of EOS M bodies. The Pacific Rim is where it's at for the M series.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> If it's the smallest camera in the EOS R lineup it will not have dual card slots.


If it comes to replace XX0D/Rebel/Kiss line then yes no dual card slots and may end up similar to exisiting entry level EOS-M cameras.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.


This is not a great argument, either. If you can afford the latest and greatest bodies and lenses, then the extra cost should not be much issue (and this aps-c RF is not going to be cheap if it's any good, by the way)

RF mount stuff is not a good deal right now. I just upgraded to two brand new full warranty 51MP 5DsR bodies for $3000 total, which allows me to buy another EF L-grade lens also and still come in below the R5 for all all that. If you have a price target to hit, this is smarter and functionally easier than buying a crop sensor for one of your two main bodies IMO. Even if another EF lens is never made again, the EF lens selection is still overall better than RF right now and will probably stay that way for at least a few years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

st jack photography said:


> I also have no idea why the heck a person would want a Canon aps-c when the RP is $999. Do people really want to save some cash so bad they downgrade to a massively inferior sensor? I am on a fixed income of $600 a month, and I won't touch an aps-c; I will buy a used full frame before I buy a brand new aps-c. I guess people who have never shot with full frame and always owned rebels are ok with the inferioprity not knowing better, but I think it is still madness for Canon to make one. A $700 aps-c RF REBEL vs. a $999 RP full frame, with the RP still having more features? GTFO, I will pay the extra $300 every time so I have a "big boy camera." I stopped using point-n-shoots and aps-c when I decided that *my images matter.*
> People (Rebel users) seem to think that those cheap prime lenses and that turd-like L kit zoom will still be as useful when they get a full frame, but that is seldom the truth, since by the time most people pony up for full frame, the L lens bug has already bitten them hard. For many, even the chintzy 24-105 f4 becomes too cheap to put on a full frame. Besides, we all know the 24-105 is an L imposter and a marketing tool for camera peasants.
> To be fair, I guess it makes sense Canon would go through the boring motions of making a standard subpar Rebel aps-c just so camera peasants can play with the genius RF lenses, but a pro-level 7d-ish camera seems stupid, absolutely stupid, given how small and inexpensive entry-level full frame bodies are now.



I own three 5-Series bodies (II,III, and IV) and one 7-Series body (II). I owned my first FF body before I owned the original 7D (which I donated to the photography department of a local high school some time ago). I already had a 5D Mark III when I bought the 7D Mark II because, at the time, it was the only non 1-Series body in Canon's catalog with flicker reduction that revolutionized shooting under flickering stadium/gym lighting.

They're different tools for different jobs. When I'm shooting sports under the lights or indoors the faster handling APS-C body lets me get away with using the 70-200/2.8 I already own (and also use on the FF bodies for other purposes) instead of needing to pay $6,100 for an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and still need a 70-200/2.8 on another body for when the action gets too close. I'm also using the 5D IV with a shorter zoom (24-70 or 24-105) or maybe even the 5D III with a 16-35 or 17-40 and the 5D IV with a 50mm or 85mm prime.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 L is legendary for taking any abuse one throws at it and just continuing to work and giving images that are more than good enough for low resolution newsprint or web distribution. That's something the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L could NOT do. Look at it funny while the barrel is extended and that lens needs a trip to CPS for realignment. If you are lucky, it will be worked on by one of the few technicians who actually know how to line one back up properly.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.
> 
> It is a wonderful camera.
> 
> ...



The only issue I have with the M6 Mark II is the lack of an eye level viewfinder without tying up the hot shoe. Coupled with the lack of PC port, there's no way to sync with off camera flash when using the EVF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> But that would only make about a $100 difference in the price, not $1000. Once you have a camera that shoots at high frame rates, adding video is almost totally a firmware addition. You may need a bit more processing power and maybe a bigger FPGA, but $100 is an outside number.



Eh, maybe $150 with the memory shortage?


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There's not as much flexibility in what you suggest as having two bodies with two lenses at the same time.
> 
> I shoot with FF 5D Mark IV for most of the time. Often I also use a 5D Mark III with a supplemental lens.
> 
> ...


The fps limit doesn't apply to the 45mp R5 as it is just as fast as the 7D2. So again, a 45mp R5 would be a better choice than a crop RF. Also, if they make an RF version of the 7D2 it is not going to be cheap. The only thing that will be cheap is if they make a RF version of the Rebel/xxD, and if that is the case they will be sure to gimp it some way so that is undesirable to pros.

Re: 5DsR I don't find the fps limiting for my use cases. I had a 7D2 and found while the 10fps was neat 99.9% of the time it just resulted in more duplicates to go through I didn't need. While capability for 10fps is better, 5fps has not created any barrier for me - and that is probably the case for most people TBH. On the other hand, having two identical 51MP bodies makes lens selection and change coordination a lot easier, with the knowledge that either body can be the equivalent of a highly detailed FF or a long reach crop.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.


PBD is referring to cropping the FF to APS size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It might cost them more for the labor to remove the video features and redo menus to exclude video than just to leave it in, so the price might need to be higher.



Plus you'd have the duality of keeping two different models at adequate numbers in the supply pipeline and on the shelves of retailers. You wouldn't need 2n the numbers of a single model, but you would need n + _x _to maintain the same availability for two models as for one.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Anyone who would want to use a lightweight camera with a lightweight lens?
> 
> The camera rotation caused by pressing the shutter button cannot be compensated with an in-lens IS.



Camera rotation is a problem mostly for those who hold their left hand over the lens like a local TV news videographer and support most of the weight of the camera with their right hand. Not so much for those who properly support the camera's weight with the left hand firmly underneath the lens and the left elbow tucked against their left rib cage and don't need to use a death grip with their right hand.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.



I suspect most of the 7D crowd would be happy with a modern 32 MP APS-Censor in an R5 quality body for $2,900. But it's more likely the R7 will be in an R6 quality body, now we're talking a tad less than $2,800. They might bitch a bit about it being so much more than the 7D Mark II, but the $1,799 intro price of the 7D Mark II in late 2014 had the same buying power then as $2046 does in 2021.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:
> 
> 1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then
> 
> ...



It may or may not have been a serious mistake to do so, but I think they knew _exactly_ what they were doing when they made the two mounts incompatible.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Chig said:


> Wouldn't bother this member of the 7D crowd if it's a really great camera as it's much cheaper to buy medium length telephoto lenses (e.g. EF100-400 ii and RF100-500) and and a crop camera than FF with the super telephoto lenses such as EF600 f/4 or RF600f/4
> If Canon make a cropped version of the R3 and price it about the same as an R5 I'd buy it and so would many others in the 7D crowd I suspect.
> My 7Dii was a bargain camera but that doesn't mean I bought it cause I couldn't afford FF
> Also Canon could easily just fit the 32.5 mp sensor from the 90D into an R6 and sell it for say $2000 USD but I'd rather they built a baby R3 with a 30-35mp version of it's stacked sensor and charged a bit more as it would be the best possible birding camera.



This.

I already had multiple FF bodies when I bought the 7D Mark II. 

I didn't buy the 7D Mark II because it was cheaper than buying another 5D Mark III at the time. 

I bought it because I already owned an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the reach of the 20 MP APS-C sensor meant I didn't need to spend $6,100 on an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II to get the same number of pixels on target with a 22 MP 5D Mark III.

That, and I wanted to see what the buzz about flicker reduction under flickering stadium/gym lights was all about. It's revolutionary for that use case.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Oh yes, I see, you are so right, such iron-clad logic sales are good therefore the idea of making incompatible product lines was CLEARLY SO CLEVER.
> 
> I hope you're a professional photographer, because reasoning that weak would make you bad at practically any other line of work.



Project much?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.



But not all 7D II users are shooting birds with a single body in daylight. 

Many of us are shooting night/indoor sports with multiple bodies. We're using the same 70-200/2.8 we use for other purposes on our FF bodies with the 7D Mark II for sports to save the need of buying a $$$$$ 300/2.8 and another FF body to hold the 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets too close.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Your parallel isn't a great one because there's all sorts of huge reasons why Ram pickup tires on a smart would require total redesign of the Smart, and compromise it severely.
> 
> In contrast what compromise is my suggestion entailing? Would a few EF-M lenses have had to be a bit wider at the base than the lens barrel? Would any M bodies be forced to be taller? And if so would that compromise the M system to the point it just wouldn't be attractive any more? Honest questions, I haven't checked the exact specs.



*ALL* EOS EF-M lenses are 61mm in diameter give or take 0.5mm. 
*ALL* EOS EF-M lenses are the same diameter all the way from the mount to the front of the lens.

As focal length increases, by necessity maximum possible aperture decreases due to the 61mm constraint.

Of course the outer diameter of the mount flange must be larger than the throat diameter, which is the size of the hole inside that ring.

The outer diameter of the camera mount rings for the EF and RF mounts with a throat diameter of 54mm is 65-66mm.
So yes, the both EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses would need to be a little larger to accommodate a 54mm throat diameter.

What you're totally missing is that the EOS-M system has never been about gearheads who own multiple cameras and upgrade constantly in Canon's marketing planning.

The EOS M system is squarely aimed at the consumer who owns a single camera with only 1-3 lenses and uses it for several years before even thinking about any possible improvement via another camera. The vast majority of EOS M buyers worldwide fit that profile.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I made the comparison, because the primary drive behind the APS-c R discussion comes from enthusiasts using (primarily) the 7D II and a few using XXD bodies who want "extra reach" for long lenses and also don't want to pay the price for full frame. The 7D and the XXD bodies are full sized SLRs and as such can be used to swing a supertelephoto lens just as well as a FF body. The M bodies are comparatively tiny (i.e. Smart Car) and even though they will fit and drive the big EF lenses, they are hugely impractical for big lenses. I use my M5 with a Tamron 18-400 (which is very small for its FL) and that is about the upper limit of practicality. Even the R5 is marginally too small when attached to an 800L. I think Canon is perfectly aware of this reality, hence the R3, which is clearly big and strong enough to work well with big lenses. I don't think we know yet whether Canon will abandon the M line and move everything to the R mount, but one thing is certain, Canon is selling a LOT more M50s that Nikon is selling Z50s so my sense is that the M line will be around for quite some time. When you are paying $12-15k for lenses, arguing over $1 or 2k for the camera to use them makes little sense to me.



Again, almost all 7D Mark II users I know (admittedly a much smaller sample size than the numbers Canon has) also own FF bodies. It's different tools for different jobs.

The difference in cost is not between the FF and APS-C bodies, it is the difference in cost of using a $2K 70-200/2.8 that we already own with a high density APS-C sensor vs. the cost of using a $6K 300/2.8 lens that we don't own with a lower density FF sensor.

At the time the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in 2014 , the 5D Mark III was 22 MP, which crops to only 7.8 MP at APS-C dimensions. Even the 30 MP 5D Mark IV introduced in 2016 only crops to 11.7MP. The 45MP R5 of 2020 crops to 17 MP. That's getting close to the 2014 7D Mark II, but it is a far cry from the 2019 32MP D90/M6 Mark II sensor that has the same density as an 82 MP FF sensor.

When you can use a $2K lens you _already own_ with an APS-C sports body instead of needing a $6K+ lens you don't own, APS-C starts to make a LOT of sense for those shooting sports/action in light limited situations.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.
> 
> 
> 
> > People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.



You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount. 

For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.

If all people are dying to buy another lens, why has Canon only sold 1.4 EOS lenses for each EOS body they've sold over the past 34 years?

The vast majority of DSLR/MILC buyers buy one lens with the camera and that's it. Period.

The 0.4 lenses per 1 body have all been bought by a very small number of us that have bought 3-4 lenses (bought new) for each body we've bought new. Used purchases and sales make no difference whatsoever to Canon.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.
> 
> For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.
> 
> ...


There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant

Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.

But now people are upgrading from an excellent smartphone camera, not a point and shoot. And, now there are systems that are going to be a lot cheaper than RF while also having much smaller lenses since the RF mount needs to accommodate FF lenses. These smaller systems are more attractive to people used to carrying a tiny phone around as their camera.

If they are educated on the alternatives, most of the people who bought a Rebel will likely *not* elect to buy an RF APS-C as there will be other smaller and cheaper aps-c and m43 options that have that same "pro" upgrade over their smartphone

Small, light, and cheap is what made mirrorless take off in general. The RF mount by being stuck with accommodating full frame lenses will likely always be beat in all three of these categories by competitors, it's simple physics from the larger mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Where did you get that?
> I know DSLR sales are way down this year but I have not seen a breakdown by camera model.
> Rebel T7 was Canon's best-selling camera before.



Rebel T7 was Canon's best selling model at amazon in the U.S. The world is far larger than the U.S.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> This is not a great argument, either. If you can afford the latest and greatest bodies and lenses, then the extra cost should not be much issue (and this aps-c RF is not going to be cheap if it's any good, by the way)
> 
> RF mount stuff is not a good deal right now. I just upgraded to two brand new full warranty 51MP 5DsR bodies for $3000 total, which allows me to buy another EF L-grade lens also and still come in below the R5 for all all that. If you have a price target to hit, this is smarter and functionally easier than buying a crop sensor for one of your two main bodies IMO. Even if another EF lens is never made again, the EF lens selection is still overall better than RF right now and will probably stay that way for at least a few years.



Again, 5 fps is not remotely realistic when shooting sports in 2021.

Again, 50MP cropped to 19.5 MP is not realistic in 2021 when better 32 MP APS-C sensors already exist.

The biggest problem with the 90D is that the OVF AF system is not any better than the 80D was, and significantly worse than the 7D Mark II. The other problem is the slower, less durable shutter rated for only 120,000 actuations (compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 shutter rating) packaged in an overall less durable body.

The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> [..] The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.


I read somewhere that Canon like to design the breaking point into the accessory to prevent damage to the hot shoe on the camera. My EVF-DC2 feels flimsy enough for me to believe that, but I wouldn't trust in it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> The fps limit doesn't apply to the 45mp R5 as it is just as fast as the 7D2. So again, a 45mp R5 would be a better choice than a crop RF. Also, if they make an RF version of the 7D2 it is not going to be cheap. The only thing that will be cheap is if they make a RF version of the Rebel/xxD, and if that is the case they will be sure to gimp it some way so that is undesirable to pros.
> 
> Re: 5DsR I don't find the fps limiting for my use cases. I had a 7D2 and found while the 10fps was neat 99.9% of the time it just resulted in more duplicates to go through I didn't need. While capability for 10fps is better, 5fps has not created any barrier for me - and that is probably the case for most people TBH. On the other hand, having two identical 51MP bodies makes lens selection and change coordination a lot easier, with the knowledge that either body can be the equivalent of a highly detailed FF or a long reach crop.



So make up your mind. Is it the cheap 5Ds (which are all gone now, and have been for a while, by the way) or the $3,900 R5?

Either way you're still thinking that because something might be a better choice for *you* and *your use cases* that makes it a better choice for everyone. I'm not saying an R7 would be better for you. I'm saying it would be better for me and those who shoot the same things I shoot.

As we've already said, cropping the 45 MP R5 to APS-C only gives 17 MP at a time when a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists in Canon's catalog.

20 MP APS-C was exceptional when the 22 MP 5D Mark III was the highest resolution FF body in the catalog. But it's not 2014 any more.

And for the dozenth or so time, it's not the low cost of the 7D Mark II (which admittedly was very nice) that made it so attractive. It was not having to buy a $6,100 EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II instead of being able to use lenses I already have that makes it such a great solution.

As to the "identical body" thing: the 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II can all be set up to operate identically. Yes, there are some options one offers that the other do not. But the buttons are in the same places and there are enough of the same menu options in each of them to set up a very usable camera with the same options selected for all three. I'd expect that an R7 would be equally similar to the R6 and R5 in that respect.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, 5 fps is not remotely realistic when shooting sports in 2021.
> 
> Again, 50MP cropped to 19.5 MP is not realistic in 2021 when better 32 MP APS-C sensors already exist.
> 
> ...


I am not sure why you think Canon is going to give you 32MP sensor (APS-C or not) in a mirrorless camera - with pro-level features no less - when the 20MP R6 is $2499 and Canon still has on tap the ability to upsell people on a more expensive R5, future R3, future R5s, or future R1 (all with cropping modes). Canon will always try to lure you to buy the more expensive option by sabotaging some element of the cheaper lines - so I would not be surprised if the first APS-C is more in line with the 7D2's sensor density and 90D's featureset (+mirrorless). You might say "but the 90D is already much higher in density than the 7D2!" Sure, but even the 6D2 is higher in density than the R6, and that didn't stop Canon from putting a lower MP sensor in the R6 years later for product differentiation purposes from the R5.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant
> 
> Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.
> 
> ...



Which is exactly why a low end APS-C RF mount camera for new photographers makes a lot less sense than a higher end APS-C RF mount camera for those who also own FF EOS R_x_ cameras and either EF or RF telephoto lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I read somewhere that Canon like to design the breaking point into the accessory to prevent damage to the hot shoe on the camera. My EVF-DC2 feels flimsy enough for me to believe that, but I wouldn't trust in it.



Hmmm. Maybe. I'm trying to find a picture I have seen of a perfectly good EF 300mm f/2.8 still attached to the mount ring and light box that it pulled completely out the front of a 1D X.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> So make up your mind. Is it the cheap 5Ds (which are all gone now, and have been for a while, by the way) or the $3,900 R5?



You can still buy a 5DsR brand new from B&H to this day. I just got a 2nd one delievered last week I ordered a couple of weeks ago. Both options are still viable, the 5DsR is not long gone. If you put in a backorder now, you will definitely get it as they are still making them (at a slower rate), it just might take a few weeks: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119027-REG/canon_0582c002_eos_5ds_r_dslr.html

Regarding "which one," that is up to the priorities of the user. I was willing to take the 5fps and axe the mirrorless featureset in order to acquire two 51MP bodies and a lens for the price of a single R5. Other people who want the mirrorless featureset, higher FPS, latest and greatest, etc, a single R5 might be a better option.

Either way, both of them are super high resolution sensors that will allow you to crop to the equivalent of a 7D2 - but even better, you also have the ability to crop a much larger area than APS-C, which APS-C cannot do and can never do!


Michael Clark said:


> Either way you're still thinking that because something might be a better choice for *you* and *your use cases* that makes it a better choice for everyone. I'm not saying an R7 would be better for you. I'm saying it would be better for me and those who shoot the same things I shoot.
> 
> As we've already said, cropping the 45 MP R5 to APS-C only gives 17 MP at a time when a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists in Canon's catalog.
> 
> 20 MP APS-C was exceptional when the 22 MP 5D Mark III was the highest resolution FF body in the catalog. But it's not 2014 any more.


I think you are still thinking that Canon is going to give you a top tier APS-C sensor with top tier featureset in a mirrorless body for similar pricing to the R6. I just don't see that. They would prefer you to spend the extra grand (or more) on the R5 or future R3, R5s, R1. Anything like what you describe likely won't be available until all of the aforementioned sales have been fully milked - I am guessing the first RF mount APS-C will be more like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP APS-C sensor knowing Canon's typical marketing tradeoffs and timings. Just like the R6 has a lower density sensor than the 5D4 and 6D2, I would expect the same out of the first RF APS-C sensor vs its DSLR counterparts.



Michael Clark said:


> And for the dozenth or so time, it's not the low cost of the 7D Mark II (which admittedly was very nice) that made it so attractive. It was not having to buy a $6,100 EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II instead of being able to use lenses I already have that makes it such a great solution.



The R5s is apparently going to be able to take 200MP photos. Even cropped to APS-C size, it will dwarf the density of a 32MP APS-C sensor using the same lens. I think the MP density from an R5 cropped is probably what the density of the first mirrorless RF APS-C camera will be. It is too soon for Canon to cannibalize the more costly market when they still have yet the R5s, R3, and R1 to sell.



Michael Clark said:


> As to the "identical body" thing: the 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II can all be set up to operate identically. Yes, there are some options one offers that the other do not. But the buttons are in the same places and there are enough of the same menu options in each of them to set up a very usable camera with the same options selected for all three. I'd expect that an R7 would be equally similar to the R6 and R5 in that respect.


The advantage of an identical body is that you don't have to coordinate lens swaps. Meaning if I have a 35mm lens f/2 on one camera and an 85mm f/1.8 on another camera, in the heat of the moment (like an event, etc) I dont even have to think about "this camera is the FF long camera, this camera is the cropped short camera, etc", I can swap either one and get the same results and can continue to do so unabated. Similarly, identical high MP bodies can function either as a reach or close-up camera, so no worries there either. When the sensors are totally different types that is not the case.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I am not sure why you think Canon is going to give you 32MP sensor (APS-C or not) in a mirrorless camera - with pro-level features no less - when the 20MP R6 is $2499 and Canon still has on tap the ability to upsell people on a more expensive R5, future R3, future R5s, or future R1 (all with cropping modes). Canon will always try to lure you to buy the more expensive option by sabotaging some element of the cheaper lines - so I would not be surprised if the first APS-C is more in line with the 7D2's sensor density and 90D's featureset (+mirrorless). You might say "but the 90D is already much higher in density than the 7D2!" Sure, but even the 6D2 is higher in density than the R6, and that didn't stop Canon from putting a lower MP sensor in the R6 years later for product differentiation purposes from the R5.



The 6D and 6D Mark II, even with their lower grade body construction and shutters, were still more expensive at introduction than the 7D Mark II at introduction. But I don't think anyone is expecting a well specced R7 to be cheaper than the R6. I think the most likely possibility if we get a "7D replacement" in the RF mount will be a 30-35 MP sensor in an R6 type body for about the same price as the R6. Many of us, you not included, would find that very useful. It's OK if it's not the best solution for you.

How many times do I need to say this? *"It's not the price of the R7 itself that makes the idea so attractive, it's not having to buy an RF300mm f/2.8 L IS that makes it so attractive." *(Which is one reason I'm not completely convinced that we'll ever get that kind of an R7. But it will be nice for many of us if we do.)

*If it's not for you, fine. But why do you keep insisting that what works best for you has to work best for the rest of us? Why do you keep arguing with me that you know better than I do what I want?*

Also, any FF camera with the same pixel density as a 32-35 MP APS-C sensor (82-90 MP for FF) will not handle as fast as as a 32-35 MP APS-C camera can handle with the same generation of processing inside.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You can still buy a 5DsR brand new from B&H to this day. I just got a 2nd one delievered last week I ordered a couple of weeks ago. Both options are still viable, the 5DsR is not long gone. If you put in a backorder now, you will definitely get it as they are still making them (at a slower rate), it just might take a few weeks: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119027-REG/canon_0582c002_eos_5ds_r_dslr.html



Hot off the presses less than five minutes ago:







The 5Ds has been showing "no longer available" for a while. I did consider buying one at $1,199. (But not for use as a 7D Mark II replacement)

The 5Ds R has been showing "request stock alert" each time I've looked lately.

I've been waiting on a "stock alert" for an EF 35mm f/2 IS for at least three months and only keep getting the "we haven't forgotten you" email every 15 days.

Congratulations on getting lucky and catching one in stock.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.



I've found that an(adapted) EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens, when mated to the EOS M6 Mark II...yields quite acceptable results--both image quality and 'usability' are sufficient for my needs.


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 14, 2021)

An RP replacement under $700 would definitely have me buy back into the Canon R system. I sold my entire kit some time ago. I would love a full frame M6 basically. No EVF, bigger battery, smaller than RP.

But if it's RP-sized and has an EVF, I'll still get it. But I think to get the cost down, EVF has to go. i hardly use it anyway. For fun photography, I never had a problem with LCD only. Shot my M6 everywhere like that, not a single issue. EVFs have their use in sunny situations but I feel they're mostly a throwback to the 1950s. If cameras never existed before and humans designed them from scratch, I doubt an EVF would EVFs would be thing. Throw on a good bright screen and there's no need for an EVF. Take a look at our phones.

Sure I guess for shooting in really harsh sun, an EVF can be a nice handy feature but that's really only so you can find someone's eye/face. but if the camera is smart enough, do you need it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Either way, both of them are super high resolution sensors that will allow you to crop to the equivalent of a 7D2 - but even better, you also have the ability to crop a much larger area than APS-C, which APS-C cannot do and can never do!


It's not 2014 any more. Just as the bar has been raised for FF resolution, the bar has been raised for APS-C resolution. The excellent 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists.




Ruined said:


> I think you are still thinking that Canon is going to give you a top tier APS-C sensor with top tier featureset in a mirrorless body for similar pricing to the R6. I just don't see that. They would prefer you to spend the extra grand (or more) on the R5 or future R3, R5s, R1. Anything like what you describe likely won't be available until all of the aforementioned sales have been fully milked - I am guessing the first RF mount APS-C will be more like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP APS-C sensor knowing Canon's typical marketing tradeoffs and timings. Just like the R6 has a lower density sensor than the 5D4 and 6D2, I would expect the same out of the first RF APS-C sensor vs its DSLR counterparts.




If so, most of the 7D Mark II crowd will pass on the R7, and I'm pretty sure Canon knows this.

The other option you ignored for potential buyers is to just keep using their 7D Mark II bodies until they break and can't be fixed. Many of us could justify the cost of an R7 if it were offered at $2500-3000, but can't justify an extra R5 body from a cost-benefit ratio. There's not enough money shooting local high school and little league sports to spend that kind of dough on equipment any more.

I'd expect if this camera comes to fruition, it will be in an R6 level body with R6 level features and AF, but with a higher density sensor ala the 32 MP APS-C sensor Canon already has. I'd expect it will sell for marginally more than the R6 (at introduction). I'd also expect it to sell like the R6 and R5 are selling. I think Canon knows this, too.

If it doesn't come to fruition, then maybe when our 7D Mark II bodies break we'll look at a different maker with a single telephoto lens in that other mount for use as our primary sports/action long body? Since we only use one lens with our 7D Mark II, it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster you make it out to be to go to another mount for that tool with a singular use. Some folks kept their Canon stuff for everything else but replaced their 7D Mark II bodies with the Nikon D500 and a single Nikon telephoto lens before Nikon announced they were discontinuing the D500.




Ruined said:


> The R5s is apparently going to be able to take 200MP photos. Even cropped to APS-C size, it will dwarf the density of a 32MP APS-C sensor using the same lens. I think the MP density from an R5 cropped is probably what the density of the first mirrorless RF APS-C camera will be. It is too soon for Canon to cannibalize the more costly market when they still have yet the R5s, R3, and R1 to sell.



The R5s might be able to take multi-exposure 200MP photos using pixel shift. No one in their right mind expects it to be able to take single frames at 200 MP in high speed burst mode for sports shooting.




Ruined said:


> The advantage of an identical body is that you don't have to coordinate lens swaps. Meaning if I have a 35mm lens f/2 on one camera and an 85mm f/1.8 on another camera, in the heat of the moment (like an event, etc) I dont even have to think about "this camera is the FF long camera, this camera is the cropped short camera, etc", I can swap either one and get the same results and can continue to do so unabated. Similarly, identical high MP bodies can function either as a reach or close-up camera, so no worries there either. When the sensors are totally different types that is not the case.



Why would anyone need to coordinate lens swaps? The longest lens always goes on the APS-C body and the shorter lenses always goes on the FF body in the FF + APS-C shooting scenario. What's to swap?

I NEVER use the 7D Mark II with any lens other than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Ever.

Okay, I admit I have done AFMA calibration with my longer primes (135/2, 135/2+1.4X III, 100/2) and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on the 7D Mark II in case of an emergency when I'm somewhere with only one FF body and the 7D II and either the FF body or the 70-200 craps out on me, but I've never actually shot anything other than test charts and other test objects in my yard with the 7D Mark II and any lens other than the 70-200mm. Ever.

Every other lens I have goes on one of my FF bodies. It's really not that hard.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Hot off the presses less than five minutes ago:
> 
> View attachment 198296
> 
> ...


You are doing it wrong 

The 5DS is long gone for a while (other than Canon refurb), but the 5DsR is still being made brand new but in small batches.

See the big blue "ADD TO CART" button for the 5DsR? Press that, put on backorder and you will get it delivered in about a month. You are not going to get a "stock alert" because B&H is taking backorders and just filling them as stock comes in (so no free stock ever shows up).

I backordered one 5DsR body on 4/8/21 and it was shipped on 5/14/21.

I backordered a second 5DsR body on 5/19/21 and it was shipped on 6/9/21.

At no point were these ever shown "in stock" on the B&H website as I had an alert set up and it never triggered.

So if you want one, backorder it and it will come in 3-5 weeks just like the website says.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.


No, it doesn't. As I stated, Nikon had that migration path. The point is that the vast majority of APS-C DSLR buyers were of the sort who bought a Rebel/xxxD body with a kit lens (or two-lens kit), and that's all they bought unless or until their camera broke, then they replaced it with the current equivalent product. That market segment has shrunk, but those are the people buying an EOS M body with a kit lens and nothing else, and that remains the largest segment of ILC buyers (note that largest segment doesn't necessarily equate with greatest profitability, that is a numbers game involving unit sold and cost of goods).

Those buyers who want to upgrade to FF will need a different standard lens to go with their better camera, so mount compatibility is not really a big impediment, except for those who really can't afford a FF camera setup...and as I said, those customers are not of high value to Canon.



SwissFrank said:


> You seem to forget what a quantum leap the all-electronic EF mount was, and may not have been around while Canon shooters were dismayed that their entire outfit was outdated at the stroke of a pen. Even in the mid-90s, 8 years later, I met photogs that said they felt raped by Canon and moved from FD not to EF but to Nikon in response.


So in your mind, Canon's introduction of autofocus and electronic aperture control in a new mount was a quantum leap, but Nikon's addition of autofocus and electronic aperture control to the existing F-mount was not? Your username may be SwissFrank, but your logic has more holes than a wheel of Emmental. 



SwissFrank said:


> And yet the superiority of the mount made it ultimately worth it, as Canon's share of the pro market went from 25% to 90% if I recall correctly.


Thanks for substantiating my point. Canon made a change to a new mount, incompatible with the previous one, and succeeded. The RF mount is a new FF MILC mount, incompatible with the previous APS-C MILC mount, but you're arguing that's a mistake. More of that Swiss cheese logic.



SwissFrank said:


> In contrast there's no corresponding compelling technical reason to move from EF-M to RF mounts, when the EF-M mount could have BEEN the RF mount. And yet we have endless speculation on this very forum of Canon releasing small-sensor RF cameras that would be nothing more than M cameras with an extra couple mm of film-to-flange.


The M lenses are a uniform diameter, and the mount is optimized for a small camera/lens combination. As I stated, making it bigger is contrary to Canon's stated design philosophy for the M line – in which small size is a very large part.



SwissFrank said:


> I'm not positive but I think I've seen at least a few Canon patents of lenses with the RF film-to-flange distance but small-sensor image circles.
> Time will tell. If Canon introduces a small-sensor RF body, that will prove me right and prove you wrong. Especially if they discontinue the EF-M product line at that time.


Launching an APS-C EOS R will not prove you right. The R line is targeted at high-end buyers, and some of them may be interested in a 7-series approach to 'more reach' (the fallaciousness of that argument did not stop people here claiming the 7DII has more reach than the 5Ds because the former is APS-C). If they launch an APS-C EOS R, they'll launch an RF-S 17/18-xx kit lens with it, and an RF-S 10/11-xx UWA zoom, too. But unless they're going to sell an APS-C EOS R + lens kit for <$1,000, it is absolutely not a replacement for the EOS M. Only replacing the EOS M line with a similarly inexpensive EOS R APS-C lineup would prove you right. Don't hold your breath.



SwissFrank said:


> > People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.
> No, because even with compatible mounts, they'd sell another lens anyway. So the incompatible mount doesn't give Canon a NET sale, rather only a sale they'd have gotten anyway.


So if they'd have gotten the lens sale anyway, why make the mounts compatible? Consider it from the other perspective – Canon sells you a FF body and says you can use your APS-C lenses on it, you do and you aren't happy with the results, so you abandon the system.



SwissFrank said:


> > Your suggestion that the EF-M mount could have been bigger to match future RF would mean bigger M bodies and bigger M lenses.
> Which lens? Which body? How much bigger? At what cost to sales? You may be right, but give me details on this if you're calling me a liar in front of the world.


If you increase flange focal distance by 10%, you're going to have a thicker camera. The EF-M mount has a 47mm throat diameter, the RF mount has a 54 mm throat diameter. Look at the M2, where the distance from the edge of the mount to the edge of the camera is ~2mm at the top and <1mm at the bottom, and tell me that increasing the throat diameter by 7mm would not increase the size of the camera. All of the EF-M lenses have a uniform 60.9mm diameter. Making the mount bigger would necessitate bigger lenses. Canon cann'a change the laws of physics. I didn't think spelling out these details was necessary for you to understand that a bigger mount means bigger cameras and lenses, but I was wrong.


How can anyone provide details on lost sales for the path not taken? But as I stated, Canon said small size is a big part of the M design philosophy, and bigger bodies and lenses are counter to that philosophy, which is reason enough to make the choices Canon made. Choices which gave them the #1 APS-C MILC lineup.

@SwissFrank Why is it that you continue ignoring the main point, which is the data-driven counter to your baseless claim that Canon gave no thought to the EF-M vs. RF mount designs? I suppose because you have realized you're wrong but are unable to admit it. Sad.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> An RP replacement under $700 would definitely have me buy back into the Canon R system. I sold my entire kit some time ago. I would love a full frame M6 basically. No EVF, bigger battery, smaller than RP.
> 
> But if it's RP-sized and has an EVF, I'll still get it. But I think to get the cost down, EVF has to go. i hardly use it anyway. For fun photography, I never had a problem with LCD only. Shot my M6 everywhere like that, not a single issue. EVFs have their use in sunny situations but I feel they're mostly a throwback to the 1950s. If cameras never existed before and humans designed them from scratch, I doubt an EVF would EVFs would be thing. Throw on a good bright screen and there's no need for an EVF. Take a look at our phones.
> 
> Sure I guess for shooting in really harsh sun, an EVF can be a nice handy feature but that's really only so you can find someone's eye/face. but if the camera is smart enough, do you need it?




No matter how good IS, IBIS, or IS+IBIS is, one can always shoot static objects in low light with longer Tv using an eye level viewfinder held against the face than when holding the camera out in front of the body. Any technology that makes it easier to get a non-blurry photo holding the camera away from the body can also be used to allow even slower exposure times when holding a camera with more stability against one's face. Only when using a tripod mounted camera does using the rear LCD allow for slower exposure times if a wired or wireless remote shutter release is also used.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It's not 2014 any more. Just as the bar has been raised for FF resolution, the bar has been raised for APS-C resolution. The excellent 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists.



Again, the R6 came out with a lower resolution than the 6D2 while costing $1000 more years later. The fact a 32mp APS-C sensor exists doesn't mean it will be used.


Michael Clark said:


> If so, most of the 7D Mark II crowd will pass on the R7, and I'm pretty sure Canon knows this.



Based on their treatment of the 7 series as the red headed stepchild of the lineup, this slice of the market seems to be the absolute lowest priority for Canon 


Michael Clark said:


> The other option you ignored for potential buyers is to just keep using their 7D Mark II bodies until they break and can't be fixed. Many of us could justify the cost of an R7 if it were offered at $2500-3000, but can't justify an extra R5 body from a cost-benefit ratio. There's not enough money shooting local high school and little league sports to spend that kind of dough on equipment any more.



The other option is to spend a bit more on an R5, R5s, R3, etc and this is what Canon wants you to do


Michael Clark said:


> I'd expect if this camera comes to fruition, it will be in an R6 level body with R6 level features and AF, but with a higher density sensor ala the 32 MP APS-C sensor Canon already has. I'd expect it will sell for marginally more than the R6 (at introduction). I'd also expect it to sell like the R6 and R5 are selling. I think Canon knows this, too.


I think these are high hopes. I fully expect Canon will instead attempt to sell through all of their expensive full frame mirrorless cameras that can be used for sports before offering people a cheaper alternative. That would be the best way to maximize profit and usually how Canon rolls.


Michael Clark said:


> The R5s might be able to take multi-exposure 200MP photos using pixel shift. No one in their right mind expects it to be able to take single frames at 200 MP in high speed burst mode for sports shooting.


It's definitely possible physically , it just depends how powerful of a professor they put in it how fast the fps will be.


Michael Clark said:


> Why would anyone need to coordinate lens swaps? The longest lens always goes on the APS-C body and the shorter lenses always goes on the FF body in the FF + APS-C shooting scenario. What's to swap?
> 
> I NEVER use the 7D Mark II with any lens other than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Ever.
> 
> ...


And you see no benefit for the 70-200 of having effective 70-320mm range instead of 112-320 without requiring a lens swap? Or that you could be using the 70-200 for portraits and then immediately use it for a reach shot while using the same body? Or the ability for the 70-200 to be both a reach lens and a portrait lens while the other camera can be used with a 16-35? The benefits of high MP is extreme flexibility that APS-C lacks.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> @SwissFrank Why is it that you continue ignoring the main point, which is the data-driven counter to your baseless claim that Canon gave no thought to the EF-M vs. RF mount designs? I suppose because you have realized you're wrong but are unable to admit it. Sad.


I had a few contretemps with dear Frank, he doesn't like physics or demonstrable facts, so much so that he now blocks me. I suspect you will get some peace and quiet soon as you will be blocked by him too


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> You are doing it wrong
> 
> The 5DS is long gone for a while (other than Canon refurb), but the 5DsR is still being made brand new but in small batches.
> 
> ...



I'm glad that works for you. I rarely leave that much money in any account attached to a debit card until immediately before I make a purchase. I don't do credit cards at all. Not knowing when they are going to submit the transaction until after the fact means I won't be ordering things that way.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm glad that works for you. I rarely leave that much money in any account attached to a debit card until immediately before I make a purchase. I don't do credit cards at all. Not knowing when they are going to submit the transaction until after the fact means I won't be ordering things that way.


Yeah granted I used a CC so it didn't get charged until ship date.


----------



## Maru (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.
> 
> For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.
> 
> ...





Ruined said:


> There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant
> 
> Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.
> 
> ...


I agree with your point and I think Canon has changed its policy to focus on people with a> completely pro, who can afford very costly gears or have lot of gears which they cant get rid off or b> who wants to stay with whatever they have till those are gone with aging c> beginner marker ..may be its because of what they want or may be because they started late on mirrorless and still struggling to speedup on middle tier


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Again, the R6 came out with a lower resolution than the 6D2 while costing $1000 more years later. The fact a 32mp APS-C sensor exists doesn't mean it will be used.
> 
> The EOS 6D Mark II debuted in 2017 at $1,900 in the U.S. and stayed at that price for well over one year. The EOS R6 is currently selling for $2,500 in the U.S. well less than one year after it began shipping. That's hardly a $1,000 dollar difference, especially when the value of $1,900 in 2017 equates to the value of $2,086 today.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, almost all 7D Mark II users I know (admittedly a much smaller sample size than the numbers Canon has) also own FF bodies. It's different tools for different jobs.
> 
> The difference in cost is not between the FF and APS-C bodies, it is the difference in cost of using a $2K 70-200/2.8 that we already own with a high density APS-C sensor vs. the cost of using a $6K 300/2.8 lens that we don't own with a lower density FF sensor.
> 
> ...


I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.



At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Camera rotation is a problem mostly for those who hold their left hand over the lens like a local TV news videographer and support most of the weight of the camera with their right hand. Not so much for those who properly support the camera's weight with the left hand firmly underneath the lens and the left elbow tucked against their left rib cage and don't need to use a death grip with their right hand.


Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.


It does with an R5. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.8886044093996631&y=-0.7632560616360384


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.


Really?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.



What's that got to do with how folks hold their cameras?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?
> 
> View attachment 198303



Lets see the 5D III and IV vs. 7D Mark II comparisons. That's where I live.

1-Series seem to always clean up better at high ISO.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> If that's the case, then we'll probably never see an R7.



Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.

I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be as good or nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience at a lower price but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see R7 happening remotely soon is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.



Michael Clark said:


> Surely you're not suggesting that multiple images of a moving subject exposed in sequence combined into a very high megapixel single image will work for sports? Even if it could be done to image a moving target with several lower resolution exposures combined to produce a single 200MP frame, the processing demands of such a method would certainly prevent high frame rate continuous bursts for more than a handful of frames?



If the processor is powerful enough, it is physically doable for sports at least is what I am saying - just requires a more powerful processor. I don't know what Canon has in mind exactly, but I would hope it would have some ability for motion otherwise it would have an extremely limited use case of still-life only.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> It does with an R5. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.8886044093996631&y=-0.7632560616360384



Interesting that the difference is much greater in the lower right and upper left corners than in the rest of the scene.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> What's that got to do with how folks hold their cameras?


Sorry. Clicked the wrong post. I was responding to your pricing and inflation comment.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

Ruined said:


> Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.
> 
> I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see this happening is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.
> 
> ...




Based on all I've seen, the R3 will be a sports body, but the R1 will then be a 1-Series continuation along the lines of the 1Ds/5D III and IV concept of high resolution bodies optimized more for studio, portrait, and wedding work than for sports. It seems to me they are dividing the 1-Series line back into separate sports/reportage and studio/fashion models.




It all depends upon what kind of lenses and how many of them Canon thinks an R7 can sell that wouldn't otherwise be sold. We'll see eventually.




You may have heard about a few issues of heat with the R5? That would be a minor warmup compared to the firestorm of heat generated by what you're proposing.

No one in their right mind thinks using multiple exposures and precise IBIS movements to create very high resolution images would be useful as a sports camera. For one, the camera would need to be absolutely stationary, so one couldn't follow the action while shooting in burst mode. Every other camera I'm aware of that uses IBIS movements to generate high resolution images from multiple lower resolution frames can only use that feature as an extremely limited use case for still life only.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Interesting that the difference is much greater in the lower right and upper left corners than in the rest of the scene.
> 
> View attachment 198304


My experience with the r5 is that it stays just over a stop ahead of the 90D (I have both) up to at least 12800 and that includes more pixels in the bargain. If you click the comp button, it gives a better idea of the relative amount of detail captured. I suspect a fair bit of the difference results from how hard the 90D pushes lenses. The MTF on most lenses drops like a rock at that resolution. I have a lot of glass and not much of it takes full advantage of that sensor.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> *ALL* EOS EF-M lenses are 61mm in diameter give or take 0.5mm.
> *ALL* EOS EF-M lenses are the same diameter all the way from the mount to the front of the lens.


This is only true of Canon lenses.
Third-party lens makers do no have to stick to that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> This is only true of Canon lenses.
> Third-party lens makers do no have to stick to that.



I doubt Canon makes decisions about the size of the mount ring for an entire line of camera bodies aimed at a specific market that does not include camera gearheads based on what third party lens makers may or may not do. 

Further, how many third party lenses are currently available for the EOS-M mount? A mount that has been around for nearly a decade now? Perhaps the third party lens makers also realize, along with Canon, that the typical EOS M buyer does not collect lenses the way those here at Canon Rumors do?


----------



## SteveC (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.


Yeah, that Kalifornian can be hard to understand.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.


Funny, the M50 has consistently been showing up 3 or 4 times in the top 10 on Amazon US. Makes it look like the best selling camera in America. But, yes Americans speak American, not English .


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak.


You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.


----------



## st jack photography (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I own three 5-Series bodies (II,III, and IV) and one 7-Series body (II). I owned my first FF body before I owned the original 7D (which I donated to the photography department of a local high school some time ago). I already had a 5D Mark III when I bought the 7D Mark II because, at the time, it was the only non 1-Series body in Canon's catalog with flicker reduction that revolutionized shooting under flickering stadium/gym lighting.
> 
> They're different tools for different jobs. When I'm shooting sports under the lights or indoors the faster handling APS-C body lets me get away with using the 70-200/2.8 I already own (and also use on the FF bodies for other purposes) instead of needing to pay $6,100 for an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and still need a 70-200/2.8 on another body for when the action gets too close. I'm also using the 5D IV with a shorter zoom (24-70 or 24-105) or maybe even the 5D III with a 16-35 or 17-40 and the 5D IV with a 50mm or 85mm prime.
> 
> The EF 24-105mm f/4 L is legendary for taking any abuse one throws at it and just continuing to work and giving images that are more than good enough for low resolution newsprint or web distribution. That's something the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L could NOT do. Look at it funny while the barrel is extended and that lens needs a trip to CPS for realignment. If you are lucky, it will be worked on by one of the few technicians who actually know how to line one back up properly.


Your reply is very restrained considering the brutality of my answer. I don't know why I was so mean.

My m3, m5, and m6, as well as my gx5, were all great cameras for street photography, and I forget how much I liked them. I loved them all, being a waist shooter fan, because most had movable rear displays, which full frame didn't have at that time. My sigma quattro dp2 aps-c was cool too, a very unique looking camera with unique images. 
Most street shooters supposedly prefer 35mm lens shot at f8, although I am a different type of street shooter: I prefer wide open fast lenses in 85mm for street work, and I prefer action isolation and narrow DoF. 
I also notice that my RP has a build like a Rebel instead of a 6D, and it is already bent out of shape from heavy street use. So I can also see why some folks would buy a 7D with a magnesium metal body. My full frames were always tanks. I also remember times I considered an SL3 because I am addicted to miniature things, and that camera is tiny.
*So ultimately I can see at least a FEW reasons APS-C could still be bought and it make sense.*
Thank you for replying, and reminding me.
As for a 24-105, I would use one if it came my way, but I just can't take it seriously. My best friend is still using a 5D Classic and 24-105 v1, so maybe that is why I am so scornful of the lens. Her work could be so much better if she would upgrade at least that body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Lets see the 5D III and IV vs. 7D Mark II comparisons. That's where I live.
> 
> 1-Series seem to always clean up better at high ISO.


I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.


Did they, though? Both Canon and Nikon introduced autofocus lenses in the late 1980s, and Canon became the ILC market leader in 2004. So, who led the market in the 'decade or two' after the introduction of Nikon's sucky autofocus? Gosh, it was Nikon. #factsbeatopinions



SwissFrank said:


> In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount.


"The camera's *size*, image quality, advanced video capabilities and the versatility of Canon's full lineup of lenses make the EOS M another great option to help our customers record and capture their creative vision," said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A. Canon lists size first. As for noticeably bigger or bulkier, we'll get to that below.

Please tell me which APS-C cameras or EF-S lens would sell better if Canon had made EF-S lenses compatible with FF cameras? You can't, nor can I tell you which cameras or lenses would have sold less well if they were a bit (or more than a bit) bigger. But the whole woulda-shoulda-coulda speculation is irrelevant. Canon designed the M mount the way they did, and the M line became a global sales leader. 



SwissFrank said:


> You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?
> 
> ...and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all.


Gosh, your math is sure selective! Your ability to ignore established facts and your own previous statements is really quite impressive. 

You're suggesting that a 7mm greater throat diameter can be accommodated by a 4mm increase in height. How would that work? By eliminating the already minimal space above/below the mount so the mount goes right to the edge of the camera? Maybe possible, but unlikely. And the greater vertical height would enable them to make the camera shallower? Golly gee, you seem to have forgotten that you also wanted the 20mm RF flange focal distance instead 18mm of the EF-M...so it wouldn't be shallower (unless you conveniently ignore your prior statements).



SwissFrank said:


> Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?


Evidently you don't understand what throat diameter means. Let's try an anatomical analogy – if your throat was the same diameter as your neck, you could spew a lot more BS from your head. 

The throat is the inner diameter of the lens mount, not the diameter of the full mount. 


The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is...60.7mm, essentially diameter of all the EF-M lenses (they are all flush with the edge of the thin black ring around the silver mounting surface, which is the place the rubber ring on weather-sealed lenses actually seals on FF cameras). The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length. That's a far cry from 'wouldn't be any bigger at all', isn't it? #factsbeatopinions



SwissFrank said:


> Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.


If only you knew how to work with them properly, but evidently you don't. Sad.



SwissFrank said:


> YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.
> 
> In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.


Did you forget that EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs? They had two systems of lenses, and the EF-S lens list comprises a full system of ultrawide to telephoto zooms with a couple of primes and a macro lens. Oh my goodness, that list sounds a whole lot like the EF-M lens list, doesn't it? But sure, Canon didn't think about that at all, either, right?  

Because if they had, you might be tempted to believe that that Canon's data suggest APS-C users mostly stay APS-C users, and those relative few who upgrade to FF end up changing out most or all of their lenses, meaning mount compatibility is not very important. 



SwissFrank said:


> Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:
> 
> When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
> In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
> ...


Just to be clear, you're saying:

Bigger bodies, and >25% bigger lenses, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
Making lots of prime lenses with big image circles, meaning not just 25% larger but substantially heavier, and aimed at a target market that has a strong preference for zooms over primes, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
When the R came out, a major target market was current owners of EOS M cameras, as opposed to current DSLR owners. (Would love to see you data to support that claim, although we both know you don't have it, but as I keep saying, Canon does.)
Using RF lenses on an APS-C camera is a major advantage, even though cropping negates much of the optical advantages those lenses provide, or what have you. 
Quite frankly, none of that even remotely sounds smart.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.


Actually in America speak, we would call 4mm 5/32nds of an inch (almost dead on the money).


SwissFrank said:


> And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.
> 
> In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount. But please stop just ignoring what I explained now several times and continue citing the false example of Canon as a company that retained a mount and paid a price. (That would be a parallel if Canon, instead of making the EF-M the size of the RF mount, instead continued using the inappropriate EF-M mount for the R series bodies. They'd have a bad electronic bus and small mounting aperture, both of which would cripple the system.)
> 
> ...


The huge fallacy with your whole argument is based on assumptions from what we know today rather than looking at the actual history. When the M was introduced (July 2012), the top of Sony's mirrorless line was the Nex3 and Sony had NO FF cameras in either the Nex line or the Alpha line. The A99 (not mirrorless) didn't come out until Sept of 2012 and the A7 (Sony's first FF mirrorless wasn't released until Oct 2013. At that time, the sensor technology wasn't fast enough to provide an EVF experience that was competitive with SLRs. Canon did not Release the RF mount until they thought they were at least close to making a FF mirrorless practical and it really wasn't until the R5/R6 came out that the speed was there to actually make a FF mirrorless better than an SLR. In 2012, it wasn't clear that mirrorless would ever overtake SLRs and Canon certainly wasn't going to trash their SLR business until they knew for certain that they had something better.

Using hindsight to judge anyone's previous foresight is a game anyone can play, but it proves nothing unless you can clearly show that the one making the "faulty" decision actually had the data that you have looking backward and that is almost never the case. There is also the known fact that for every ILC sold, there are 1.4 lenses sold. That means that way less than half of camera buyers ever get an extra lens (when you take into account that some of us have many lenses). I think it is fair to assume that APS-c owners buy even less lenses, which is to say that the vast majority of EF-s and M owners never go beyond the kit lens. With that in mind, I would ask what is the point of your argument if it doesn't matter to the vast majority of camera owners?


----------



## Dragon (Jun 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.
> 
> 
> privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## victorshikhman (Jun 14, 2021)

If there's an APS-C RF camera, at least we'll have a use for all our EF-S lenses, with an adapter. Unless Canon cripples EF-S lenses on the RF crop bodies, which I wouldn't put past them. But yeah, you'd think replicating the messy EF-S bodies/glass situation would be the last thing on Canon's mind. This is not the 2000s-2010s. Sales of bodies are still dropping hard. If they start dumping RF-S bodies into the market again, year after year, fragmenting the product line with minor tweaks, T8i/80D/77D... ugh.


----------



## EduPortas (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Most Canon M users don't think about all of this stuff. They do a little research, buy a camera and a couple of lenses, and then use them for at least four or five years before the stick their heads up to see what newer stuff is out there. They're not camera gearheads.



Yep. All the more reason to cut them from the balance sheet. They are not a long term proposition.

Practically every other camera maker, save for Canon, has already taken that step.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2021)

Stuart said:


> Would an Aps-C RF camera not be targeted at vloggers. And useful for birders?



Why would a vlogger need APS-C, aside from the lower price?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 15, 2021)

Ruined said:


> This may be controversial, but who cares about IBIS for photos? The high reach lenses have amazing optical IS systems. And other manufs probably have their IBIS more refined by this point than Canon



Um, me? There isn't a lens in the world that can do 8 stops of IS, but some of the RF ones can on the IBIS bodies (whether the lens has IS or not). As for others being 'more refined' - everything I've heard suggests Canon's system is just as good, if not better (aside from the lack of pixel shift for high res stills).


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Another group is macro photographers especially ones who herp, very few move to FF cameras.


Wouldn't they use the 180mm macro on a full frame sensor if they need that equivalent focal length?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> That's exactly what happened to me...
> 
> After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my *FULLFRAME* lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...
> 
> ...


I went from 7D with EF24-105mm/f4 to 5Diii/5Div to R5 and I still have and use the same EF24-105mm. 
My second lens was a second hand EF-s 10-22mm which I used a lot but I upgraded to 5Diii with EF16-35mm/4 under an insurance claim when I accidentally drowned the 7D/EFs10-22mm. It is now my most-used lens.
4th lens was a EF70-200m/2.8 IS ii which I had for a long time as I never thought I needed to upgrade.... until the RF70-200mm came along last year and I got 20% off pricing.
My EF8-15mm and EF100/2.8 macro were second hand
My 5Div was second hand bought and sold at the same price after 2 years
Everyone has a different story to tell but mine was from APS-C to pre-ordering the R5 last year


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Wouldn't they use the 180mm macro on a full frame sensor if they need that equivalent focal length?


Depends on what they are shooting for herping 90/100/105mm are extremely popular, 180mm Macro are used for some dangerous snakes and for butterflies but on APS-C cameras. Around 5-6% of herpers I know shoot on FF cameras with rest all on crop sensor.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.


Not sure that is correct. I am also assuming that you mean the western Pacific rim as the US west coast is also on the Pacific Ocean.
English is the second language of most non-english speakers globally as well as the pacific rim (taking out mandarin vs local dialects). I have lived and worked in Asia/Australia for decades in corporate roles and communicating in English is normal. Noting I am not saying fluent/native level English though.
They may not participate in English language forums such as canon rumors though.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 7D has never cost as much as the 5D.
> It usually does cost around the 6D.
> I have also not seen people asking for 8K video.


The 7D series were a unicorn from a marketing perspective. Relatively cheap, weather sealed, dual cards, borrowed AF system from the 1D series. Today this is the R6 in full frame although the 7D probably had better weather sealing. They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D.
That great value (and extra reach/pixel density) was very attractive


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2021)

victorshikhman said:


> If there's an APS-C RF camera, at least we'll have a use for all our EF-S lenses, with an adapter. Unless Canon cripples EF-S lenses on the RF crop bodies, which I wouldn't put past them. But yeah, you'd think replicating the messy EF-S bodies/glass situation would be the last thing on Canon's mind. This is not the 2000s-2010s. Sales of bodies are still dropping hard. If they start dumping RF-S bodies into the market again, year after year, fragmenting the product line with minor tweaks, T8i/80D/77D... ugh.


All your EF-S lenses already work just fine on an R5 and AFAIK on all FF R cameras. Pop an EF-s lens on an R5 and it automatically switches to crop mode. 17.5 MP with the new AA filter is about as good as 20MP with a conventional filter, so the result is decent.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The problem is that a M6 Mark II replacement in RF mount can never be that small as the M6 because of the bigger mount.


Assuming that all the controls are still there. The Sigma fp is an example of how small a body can be compared to the mount size. Whether you consider the lack of controls to be a M6ii replacement is the question


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That would depend on what you mean by affordable.
> There is not much point in a cheap RF APS-C camera before cheap lenses arrive.
> People complained about the RP but owners were able to adapt EF lenses.
> Rebel users can already do that to the M line.
> ...


Agreed....
The M eco-system is all about affordable and small size. ASP-C RF mount cannot replicate this without a range of cheap/small RF lenses which are nowhere to be found but we all wish that they were there.
The ef40mm pancake is one of the smallest EF lenses but adapted means doubling the length on RF mount and doubles the cost if the R mount adapter is included. Surely a small/cheap RF lens wouldn't be too hard for Canon to release.

Note that RP can also adapt EF-s for even cheaper lens options


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

An aggressively priced RP would be perfect as a second body for R5/6 users and great introduction for new users to RF system even using EF-s lenses

Hard to imagine that a ASP-C sensor in RF mount would be smaller than a RPii though unless there are less controls like the Sigma fp or maybe M200. This would be a completely different market segment than the current 7D series. 

The rumour has the ASP-C option as more expensive and smaller than the RPii. The APS-C sensor should be cheaper than FF just on silicon costs assuming that both are new sensors but why more expensive than the RPii? Would that model appeal to new users? Surely the RPii would be the introduction model. I guess that reach would be important for macro or cheaper super tele lenses but the res tof the features would let down the action shooters.

The M ecosystem is all about affordable and small system. Currently the RP body is 50% more than the M50 + kit lens or 10% more than the M6ii + kit lens not to mention the cost of a R mount adapter and EF-s lens so completely different segment for price and size

A true 7D replacement would be a R6 with APS-C sensor (dual card, weather sealing, great AF). Recycling the 32mp APS-C sensor is an option but AF would suffer and assuming that video wasn't a key feature. The 1Diii and R6 share sensors so some volume is there. The real question that only Canon can answer is whether a new APS-C sensor body for action would sell well and at what price.


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The throat is the inner diameter of the lens mount, not the diameter of the full mount.
> View attachment 198318
> 
> The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is...60.7mm, essentially diameter of all the EF-M lenses (they are all flush with the edge of the thin black ring around the silver mounting surface, which is the place the rubber ring on weather-sealed lenses actually seals on FF cameras). The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length. That's a far cry from 'wouldn't be any bigger at all', isn't it? #factsbeatopinions



Just theoretically - what if Canon would create something like RS lens? Still the same mount diameter, but then reduced to a thinner barrel, to just cover the size of an APS-C sensor? I know that the lens would look a bit weird, but could something like that actually work?


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> Just theoretically - what if Canon would create something like RS lens? Still the same mount diameter, but then reduced to a thinner barrel, to just cover the size of an APS-C sensor? I know that the lens would look a bit weird, but could something like that actually work?


Of course it would work, but like the Nikon DX 16-50 kit lens for the Z50 it would be ugly and esthetics do matter. The Canon M cameras are esthetically very pleasing and believe it or not, that is one of the reasons they sell well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Yeah, that Kalifornian can be hard to understand.



Ok. They live on the western half of the pacific Rim (which is in the Eastern Hemisphere, unlike the Eastern Pacific Rim, which is in the Western Hemisphere).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Funny, the M50 has consistently been showing up 3 or 4 times in the top 10 on Amazon US. Makes it look like the best selling camera in America. But, yes Americans speak American, not English .



Amazon is where non-gearheads buy cameras. Just because a camera is in the top 10 on amazon in the U.S. does not always mean it is in the top ten among all cameras sold in the U.S. But even if it is (and it may well be), the fact that it is in the top 10 cameras in the U.S. does not eliminate the possibility that in Eastern Asia it sells far more units as the #1 selling camera in that part of the world.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.
> 
> In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount. But please stop just ignoring what I explained now several times and continue citing the false example of Canon as a company that retained a mount and paid a price. (That would be a parallel if Canon, instead of making the EF-M the size of the RF mount, instead continued using the inappropriate EF-M mount for the R series bodies. They'd have a bad electronic bus and small mounting aperture, both of which would cripple the system.)
> 
> ...



How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is *intentional*? 

Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story. 

Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.
> 
> View attachment 198317



Most of the difference is in chrominance noise, which is fairly easy to clean up without affecting fine detail too much. I don't see much difference at all in luminance noise. The difference in resolution is, of course due to 20 MP vs. 30 MP and the increased magnification ratio of the smaller sensor (assuming both were shot at the same distance with the same lens at the same focal length). As I'm sure you well know, the reason larger formats can be sharper than smaller formats with lenses of the same resolution is because they require fewer lp/mm from the lens to get to the same number of lp/ih.

The other issue I deal with when shooting at ISO 6400 is that the white jerseys (one team always wears white jerseys in the U.S. for U.S. football, basketball, and baseball) clip one stop sooner than when shooting at ISO 3200. So to keep from clipping the jerseys I need to underexpose an additional stop at ISO 6400 and then suffer the additional noise when raising the shadows and mids in raw development. 

As it is, I shoot at ISO 3200 and expose with the white jerseys just on the verge of clipping (in the raw file - the blinkys are all over the frame in the LCD preview image if they are enabled), then pull the highlights back a tad as I boost exposure about one-half stop, maybe pull up the shadows another one-third stop or so for poorly lit areas of the field and then crush the blacks up to a level to get the dark sky or areas outside the end of the stadium solid black when developing the raw files. (I'm not a fast turnaround PJ so I don't need to shoot JPEG, which pretty much requires letting the highlights blow for the white jerseys with most cameras. That's where the 1-Series would really come in handy by allowing highlight and shadow control in camera in addition to the overall contrast setting. But I don't generate enough revenue to justify the expense of 1-Series cameras.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

Dragon, you said (inside the quote you were responding to):

"Funny how system MTF always comes back to bite the smaller formats in the behind even if the sensor noise performance is equal. That is the price to pay for that supposed extra "reach". With the right lenses (a very short list) and enough light, the extra reach is there, but statistically not as often as APS-c and u4/3 aficionados would like to believe."

It all depends on the planned usage of the end product. If the images are being published at lower resolution for web, or even for small prints, the MTF loss is not as significant. The extra reach is nice to allow cropping before downsizing for web. Yes, there is the resolution penalty due to the increased enlargement ratio. But it's an acceptable tradeoff for the difference between generating positive revenue or losing a little based on the cost of each system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

EduPortas said:


> Yep. All the more reason to cut them from the balance sheet. They are not a long term proposition.
> 
> Practically every other camera maker, save for Canon, has already taken that step.



There are still a lot more camera buyers worldwide that fit the EOS M profile than there are gearheads like those of us here on Canon Rumors. North America and Western Europe have a lot more potential customers with large discretionary income compared to the rest of the world.

Canon will continue to sell EOS M cameras to those buyers as long as they keep buying enough of them for Canon to make a profit on the R&D they have already spent to develop the EOS M system. A few new models to keep interest up will allow them to sell already existing lenses for a few more years until smartphones, even the more affordable models that those in the non-affluent parts of the world tend to use, eventually eliminates that market.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure that is correct. I am also assuming that you mean the western Pacific rim as the US west coast is also on the Pacific Ocean.
> English is the second language of most non-english speakers globally as well as the pacific rim (taking out mandarin vs local dialects). I have lived and worked in Asia/Australia for decades in corporate roles and communicating in English is normal. Noting I am not saying fluent/native level English though.
> They may not participate in English language forums such as canon rumors though.



You are correct that many in that part of the world are functional in conversational English, though your perception may or may not be skewed if a larger percentage of the folks there who deal with international visitors are functional in English than the overall population. But even those folks don't show up much on the English language photography gearheads forums, do they?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The 7D series were a unicorn from a marketing perspective. Relatively cheap, weather sealed, dual cards, borrowed AF system from the 1D series. Today this is the R6 in full frame although the 7D probably had better weather sealing. They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D.
> That great value (and extra reach/pixel density) was very attractive



The 7D series never had a better AF system than the then current 5-Series camera. Both the 7D and the 5D Mark II were equally inconsistent from shot-to-shot. Just ask Roger Cicala.



The first generation of the 7D had a horrible 19-point AF system! It was nothing like the 1D Mark IV AF system. It was nicely configurable, so it "felt" pro-level when you were using it. But it was also notoriously inconsistent from shot to shot in burst mode when tracking moving subjects. When you sat down and actually started culling images, you were almost always disappointed that the shot that caught the peak action was always slightly front or rear focused. Out of ten frames in a high speed burst, you would have one, two, or three that were perfectly on target, five, six, or seven that were just slightly off (equally distributed between front and rear focused) and one or two that were totally out of focus.

When the 7D mark II came out in 2014 with a near 1-Series level AF system, the 5D Mark III of 2012 already had a 1-Series level AF system. The PDAF array hardware was the same part number for the 1D X and the 5D Mark II. Ditto for the 1D X Mark II and the 5D Mark IV in 2016. The differences between the 1-Series and 5-Series in terms of AF performance at that point were in software/firmware.


----------



## masterpix (Jun 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Hi everyone, question: A friend of mine got the R6 and he wanted to sell his EF-S lens (a good one by all means), before he did so I asked him to test a thing, he put the camera on "crop sensor) and all of a sudden the FF sensor became APS-C sensor and.. So all Canon need to do is to have RP mark2 which will be affordable, so why there is a need for APS-C sensor at all?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Both Canon and Nikon introduced autofocus lenses in the late 1980s, and Canon became the ILC market leader in 2004. So, who led the market in the 'decade or two' after the introduction of Nikon's sucky autofocus? Gosh, it was Nikon. #factsbeatopinions


It is before my time but people tell me that Nikon had the better autofocus back then,


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 15, 2021)

masterpix said:


> Hi everyone, question: A friend of mine got the R6 and he wanted to sell his EF-S lens (a good one by all means), before he did so I asked him to test a thing, he put the camera on "crop sensor) and all of a sudden the FF sensor became APS-C sensor and.. So all Canon need to do is to have RP mark2 which will be affordable, so why there is a need for APS-C sensor at all?


The RP is twice as expensive as the cheapest Canon mirrorless APS-C camera and that is kind of an unnecessary hassle.
Part of the appeal of Canon is that these cameras are easy for beginners to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is *intentional*?
> 
> Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story.
> 
> Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.


Some people seem to believe that any decision which differs from the one they would have made must have been either misguided or not thought out at all. That same type of person seems to have such an incontrovertible belief in their own innate rightness that they are unable to admit when they’re wrong. So the answer to your question, “How hard is it to understand?,” is most likely that it’s impossible. #hubris


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is *intentional*?
> 
> Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story.
> 
> Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.



Buying a popcorn and preparing a chair to watch you explain the demise of an EOS-M system, once Canon announces those rumoured 3 APS-C RF bodies


----------



## masterpix (Jun 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The RP is twice as expensive as the cheapest Canon mirrorless APS-C camera and that is kind of an unnecessary hassle.
> Part of the appeal of Canon is that these cameras are easy for beginners to use.


The RP is 999$ now in Amazon, which was the price of the Rebel when its digital version just came up. Therefore I suspect that time, the RP price will slowly drop, as the rebel line did. So not long into the future, the RP price will be about 500$ which is a nice price for entry level camera.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Ok. They live on the western half of the pacific Rim (which is in the Eastern Hemisphere, unlike the Eastern Pacific Rim, which is in the Western Hemisphere).


Yeah one of those at-first-it-looks-like-a-paradox type things where the WEST Pacific is near China, which we reflexively regard as "east."


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There are still a lot more camera buyers worldwide that fit the EOS M profile than there are gearheads like those of us here on Canon Rumors. North America and Western Europe have a lot more potential customers with large discretionary income compared to the rest of the world.
> 
> Canon will continue to sell EOS M cameras to those buyers as long as they keep buying enough of them for Canon to make a profit on the R&D they have already spent to develop the EOS M system. A few new models to keep interest up will allow them to sell already existing lenses for a few more years until smartphones, even the more affordable models that those in the non-affluent parts of the world tend to use, eventually eliminates that market.



EOS-M is done, no matter how much reasoning you come up with. And if you can't get the idea of what will inevitably happen in the Canon land sooner or later, then here's a bit of an inspiration from a competing camp:









Leaked Images Of Nikon Zfc, Nikon's Upcoming Z-mount Camera With


Nikon will soon announce a new Z-mount camera with APS-C sensor, the Nikon Zfc. Here are some leaked images, and a set of rumored specs




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## Dragon (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Amazon is where non-gearheads buy cameras. Just because a camera is in the top 10 on amazon in the U.S. does not always mean it is in the top ten among all cameras sold in the U.S. But even if it is (and it may well be), the fact that it is in the top 10 cameras in the U.S. does not eliminate the possibility that in Eastern Asia it sells far more units as the #1 selling camera in that part of the world.


Actually, I said it was regularly in the top ten several times (as is in #2, #5, and #8 in different package configurations). My sense is that it is, and has been for some time the actual #1 seller on Amazon. BTW, for folks who don't live in cities with handy camera stores (about 75% of the population) Amazon and places like B&H are the only choices for both gearheads and non-gearheads.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You are correct that many in that part of the world are functional in conversational English, though your perception may or may not be skewed if a larger percentage of the folks there who deal with international visitors are functional in English than the overall population. But even those folks don't show up much on the English language photography gearheads forums, do they?


Not sure if you read my post but my final sentence was "They may not participate in English language forums such as canon rumors though."


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 7D series never had a better AF system than the then current 5-Series camera. Both the 7D and the 5D Mark II were equally inconsistent from shot-to-shot. Just ask Roger Cicala.
> 
> The first generation of the 7D had a horrible 19-point AF system! It was nothing like the 1D Mark IV AF system. It was nicely configurable, so it "felt" pro-level when you were using it. But it was also notoriously inconsistent from shot to shot in burst mode when tracking moving subjects. When you sat down and actually started culling images, you were almost always disappointed that the shot that caught the peak action was always slightly front or rear focused. Out of ten frames in a high speed burst, you would have one, two, or three that were perfectly on target, five, six, or seven that were just slightly off (equally distributed between front and rear focused) and one or two that were totally out of focus.
> 
> When the 7D mark II came out in 2014 with a near 1-Series level AF system, the 5D Mark III of 2012 already had a 1-Series level AF system. The PDAF array hardware was the same part number for the 1D X and the 5D Mark II. Ditto for the 1D X Mark II and the 5D Mark IV in 2016. The differences between the 1-Series and 5-Series in terms of AF performance at that point were in software/firmware.


I didn't say that the 7 series had the same AF system as the current 1D series at the time. My recollection... which could be completely incorrect was that the 7 series had the previous 1D's AF system.
At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.

With many of your posts, I get the impression that you are missing the point of mine or misreading them and are arguing semantics without actually adding to the conversation. This is an open forum and that is to be expected but needs to be pointed out.
Perhaps you can suggest where a replacement 7Diii with equivalent features would be priced within the RF eco-system.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Rebel T7 was Canon's best selling model at amazon in the U.S. The world is far larger than the U.S.


You are absolutely right that the US and the world are not the same. But, for luxury products like cameras, you cannot consider population alone; you must also consider purchasing power per person. (Few in, say, Chad can afford a camera.) That consideration makes the US a bit bigger in relation to the rest of the world, but still only a fraction of the entire world.


----------



## Finn (Jun 16, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> There has been no "revelation" as to the resolution of the R3.





unfocused said:


> What, you mean that pure speculation on the part of armchair experts on a gossip forum is not a revelation from Canon?



You are posting on a Canon RUMORS forum! Why are you here if you can't stand a few harmless assumptions and product spec deducing?

I think it is pretty safe to assume, based on what Canon has released and what they *have not* said, that its going to be in the 20-32MP size.

If it had a 45MP sensor in it I'm pretty sure they would say it shoots 8K to get all the fanboys salivating.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2021)

Finn said:


> You are posting on a Canon RUMORS forum! Why are you here if you can't stand a few harmless assumptions and product spec deducing?
> 
> I think it is pretty safe to assume, based on what Canon has released and what they *have not* said, that its going to be in the 20-32MP size.
> 
> If it had a 45MP sensor in it I'm pretty sure they would say it shoots 8K to get all the fanboys salivating.


When someone says that there has been a "revelation", implies that that is from Canon itself... that isn't deducing or speculating, that's why. Canon has not revealed it. Period. Going from speculating to pretending that something is known and real, is crazy. The only "revelation" you have is from forum speculation. So, there has been no "revelation".

Definition of "revelation" :
1. a *surprising and previously unknown fact, especially one that is made known in a dramatic way.*
"revelations about his personal life"

Revelation is of FACTS not speculations.

I honestly believe the camera will be 30 mp or more. Me treating my own speculations as facts is lunacy. That's what conspiracy theorists do.

You won't have your "revelation" until Canon announces it. Until then, all we have are rumors. Those are not facts. We have no idea what Canon will do to differentiate the R3 from other models.

Speculation and rumor are perfectly fine. Don't fault others for your insufficient understanding of what a word means. You do know the difference between rumor and FACT, don't you? If you didn't before, I'm glad I could provide you with a revelation of the definition.

Rumor: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

BTW: This rumor is rated as CR1. Lowest possible reliability rating. Far from fact.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> Buying a popcorn and preparing a chair to watch you explain the demise of an EOS-M system, once Canon announces those rumoured 3 APS-C RF bodies



Who said Canon doesn't think phasing out the M system eventually will be a wide business decision? 

As I've already said above, eventually the time will come when phones will overtake the market to which the EOS M series is aimed. But that is probably still around four or five years out, particularly for those living in less affluent world areas where the vast majority of the population doesn't have premium phones.

Canon will keep selling current models and lenses as long as folks buy them, at least until production line time can generate more profits making something else.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> EOS-M is done, no matter how much reasoning you come up with. And if you can't get the idea of what will inevitably happen in the Canon land sooner or later, then here's a bit of an inspiration from a competing camp:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All camera systems inevitably end. 

FD ended. EF will end soon (relatively speaking to its 34 year age). RF will end one day, too.

Just because EOS-M will inevitably end in the future (as I've said above several times, probably in 4-5 years) doesn't mean it is dead today or six months from now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> It is before my time but people tell me that Nikon had the better autofocus back then,



Yeah, that's why the pro sports/reportage market that was about 85% Nikon in 1987 was about 90% Canon by 1995.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> EOS-M is done, no matter how much reasoning you come up with. And if you can't get the idea of what will inevitably happen in the Canon land sooner or later, then here's a bit of an inspiration from a competing camp:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's aimed at a completely different type of buyer than the M-Series. What part of non-gearhead, non camera and lens collecting GAS afflicted Rumor site dwellers is so hard to understand?


The EOS M system has never been about folks who buy multiple cameras (either at the same time or via constant upgrading) and a lot of lenses (either at the same time or via constant buying and selling).

It's not about you and me or the kinds of folks who populate sites like Canon rumors.

It's about someone who wants a small, light, and affordable dedicated camera that is better than a phone (or a point and shoot when they were still around) with one or two lenses that fit what they like to shoot. They then go out and shoot with it without worrying whether it's the current "best" or not. Maybe it's travel photography. Maybe it's family and friends. Or flowers and gardens. Or butterflies. Or any other countless number of hobbies which is the central focus of the buyer, NOT the tool they use to take pictures of the things they are passionate about.

It's about people living in emerging countries that don't have the luxury of discretionary income to buy $1,000+ camera bodies. Even the few in such countries who would be able to afford such can't find them there because there's no distribution network for higher end cameras and lenses in their part of the world.

It's about folks who will buy a camera and use it for several years without constantly following the industry and obsessing over every new product that comes along.

There are still more of those kind of folks in the world than there are us, even if there aren't as many as there once was before phones began gradually moving upmarket from point-and-shoots to compact non-ILCs. Eventually smartphones will overtake the small, light, and cheap ILC market that the EOS M is aimed at. But they're not quite there yet.

It's not about you or the kinds of folks who populate sites like Canon rumors.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Actually, I said it was regularly in the top ten several times (as is in #2, #5, and #8 in different package configurations). My sense is that it is, and has been for some time the actual #1 seller on Amazon. BTW, for folks who don't live in cities with handy camera stores (about 75% of the population) Amazon and places like B&H are the only choices for both gearheads and non-gearheads.



It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that as amazon has declined as an attractive place to buy high priced items the B&Hs of the world are selling far more cameras than amazon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I didn't say that the 7 series had the same AF system as the current 1D series at the time. My recollection... which could be completely incorrect was that the 7 series had the previous 1D's AF system.
> At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
> My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.
> 
> ...



"Relatively cheap, weather sealed, dual cards, borrowed AF system from the 1D series."

"They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D."

Again, the 7D (2009) AF system was slightly more inconsistent from shot-to-shot than the contemporary 5D Mark II (2008) AF system was.


5D Mark II AF system was 9 points + 5 "AF Assist" points.





The 7D Mark II did not get a near 1-Series level AF system until 2014, two years after the 5D Mark III did in 2012.




At no time did the 7D series have a superior AF system to the 5D series. That was one of the basic premises of your suggestion that the 7D series should have been priced the same as the 5D series. (At a time when no competitor had an APS-C camera remotely priced at the 5D series level.)


The 7D most assuredly did NOT have the 1D Mark III AF system. It was a 19-point system introduced with the 7D and then later reused in the 70D.




The 1D Mark III, which was introduced in early 2007 a full two and one-half years before the 7D in late 2009, had a 45 point AF system that was also more accurate and consistent than what the 7D got.




The 1D Mark III was replaced with the 1D Mark IV at the same time the 7D was introduced in late 2009. It had pretty much the same AF system as the 1D Mark III, except that more of the AF points were cross-type.




As we've already pointed out above, Roger Cicala has well documented the performance differences between the 7D and the 1D Mark III.

The 7D Mark II, which came along in late 2014 did have the class of AF system you're talking about. But those of us who used the 7D know full well it's AF system was just as frustrating to use as the 5D Mark II's was, just in different ways. There was absolutely *nothing* about the 7D or 5D Mark II AF systems that was 1-Series level, either current or past. That didn't start until the 5D Mark III in 2012 and the 7D Mark II in 2014.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 16, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that as amazon has declined as an attractive place to buy high priced items the B&Hs of the world are selling far more cameras than amazon.


That is a good trend. Monopoly sucks.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
> My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.



"They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D."

That sounds like a fairly direct comparison to me.

Based on my own personal experience, the 7D had more AF points (19) than the 50D (9), but was no better at actually focusing the camera accurately and consistently than the 50D was. The 50D was not a more expensive camera than the 7D, which was the true replacement for the 50D, it was $300 cheaper.

The 7D was a slightly higher tier camera than the 20D/30D/40D/50D had been at the same time the 60D was a slightly lower tier camera than the 20D/30D/40D/50D had been. It was priced 30% higher than the 50D had been.

The 50D had a magnesium body and basically the same weather resistance that the 7D did. The 50D had AFMA. It had a lot of other features the Rebels did not have. Most of what you describe as being unique to the 7D was shared by the 50D and, to a lesser extent, the 40D/30D/20D.

If I had known then what I knew after using the 7D, I would have stuck with the 50D until the 7D Mark II came out. That was the one that raised the bar and probably should have been priced in the low $2K range. It was still not anything close to the 5D Mark III, which I used as my primary camera for about five years before getting a 5D Mark IV.



David - Sydney said:


> With many of your posts, I get the impression that you are missing the point of mine or misreading them and are arguing semantics without actually adding to the conversation. This is an open forum and that is to be expected but needs to be pointed out.
> Perhaps you can suggest where a replacement 7Diii with equivalent features would be priced within the RF eco-system.



I've already said several times above that I think if we get an R7 it will be in an R6 type body and will be priced about the same as the R6.


----------



## Finn (Jun 16, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> When someone says that there has been a "revelation", implies that that is from Canon itself...
> 
> Speculation and rumor are perfectly fine. Don't fault others for your insufficient understanding of what a word means. You do know the difference between rumor and FACT, don't you? If you didn't before, I'm glad I could provide you with a revelation of the definition.
> 
> ...


Oh, did Canon not say it shoots oversampled 4K?...what size sensor does it take to do that?...

They didn't say it shoots 6K. They didn't say it shoots 8K. Those are some facts we have.

That leaves a range of sensor resolutions that can achieve the official specs so-far released by Canon.

If they release tomorrow that it shoots oversampled 4K and 8K then we update the facts we know.

Facts change as new "revelations" are discovered or observed or learned.

But since we are being pedantic over this crap I should add a caveat to my above statements:

I'm *ASSUMING* Canon isn't a marketing retard and under-teases one of the most important spec sheet numbers of one of their most anticipated upcoming flagship cameras. Thats like Ferrari saying their new sports care "achieves highway speeds"...no they tease freaking absolute top speed of their product! "Our new sports car has...wheels!" "Our new flagship camera has buttons and shoots oversampled 4K!".


----------



## Kit. (Jun 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did they, though? Both Canon and Nikon introduced autofocus lenses in the late 1980s, and Canon became the ILC market leader in 2004. So, who led the market in the 'decade or two' after the introduction of Nikon's sucky autofocus? Gosh, it was Nikon. #factsbeatopinions


Is it a fact, though?

Aren't you confusing it with Canon becoming the _digital_ ILC market leader in the first year when he actually started trying (with Digital Rebel)?


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2021)

Finn said:


> Oh, did Canon not say it shoots oversampled 4K?...what size sensor does it take to do that?...
> 
> They didn't say it shoots 6K. They didn't say it shoots 8K. Those are some facts we have.
> 
> ...


Also didn't say it shoots 16k. Anyway, there has been no revelation as to sensor resolution on the R3... since forum speculation isn't fact. The only thing we know for sure is what Canon allowed to leak. BTW: Facts do not change as new facts (revelation from Canon) are discovered or observed or learned. Those facts were already there. The Earth wasn't flat up to the point it was determined to be a sphere. It has always been a sphere no matter what people speculated. Truth never changes. Facts don't change either. Rumors and speculation change.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2021)

Kit. said:


> Is it a fact, though?
> 
> Aren't you confusing it with Canon becoming the _digital_ ILC market leader in the first year when he actually started trying (with Digital Rebel)?


The two were essentially contemporaneous. Digital camera sales surpassed film cameras in 2003. In 2005, Agfa went bankrupt and Kodak had axed 2/3 of its employees. In 2006, Nikon stopped producing most film SLRs (interestingly, they continued with a non-autofocus SLR for a while), and total film SLR sales that year were lower than in the 1960s (231,000 units in 2006, compared to over 5 million DSLRs). After 2007, CIPA stopped tracking film SLR sales. 

But you’re correct that Canon’s press releases about market share are specific to digital ILCs.


----------



## -pekr- (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> That's aimed at a completely different type of buyer than the M-Series. What part of non-gearhead, non camera and lens collecting GAS afflicted Rumor site dwellers is so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> The EOS M system has never been about folks who buy multiple cameras (either at the same time or via constant upgrading) and a lot of lenses (either at the same time or via constant buying and selling).
> ...



I liked your two previous posts, as we are in an agreement, that whatever action Canon takes, is a well though decision. So if they bring in RF APS-C models, they have a reason to.

But yours third reply (the one I am replying to), makes me wonder, when / if ever Canon should phase out something like EOS-M. I was myself scounting an M6 II, for kind of "street photography", having it always in my bag. Did not purchase it just because we spent reasonable amount of money switching to R5 + holy trinity. But man, how much I like the R6 design, even if without the EVF.

That make me wonder - those family types - are they really interested in interchangeable lens - anything? In that regards - how are G7x etc lines doing nowadays, business wise? Is there a big drop-down in sales, towards the smartphones?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The two were essentially contemporaneous. Digital camera sales surpassed film cameras in 2003. In 2005, Agfa went bankrupt and Kodak had axed 2/3 of its employees. In 2006, Nikon stopped producing most film SLRs (interestingly, they continued with a non-autofocus SLR for a while), and total film SLR sales that year were lower than in the 1960s (231,000 units in 2006, compared to over 5 million DSLRs). After 2007, CIPA stopped tracking film SLR sales.


It was my personal impression back then that Nikon was less efficient in the market in both film and digital cameras for two reasons:

1. First, during the film era, the advanced features of their lenses (SWM, VR) were mostly reserved to their higher-end lenses, probably due to the cost concerns of implementing them (for the F-mount). Canon was throwing them (USM, IS) more liberally into the "advanced amateur" lenses.

2. During the beginning of the digital era, Nikon's official stance on the sensor size was that FF was dead and that APS-C ("DX") was the right choice for everyone. By Canon's strategy at that time, it was obvious that Canon considered crop sensors in high-level cameras only as a stopgap measure. Nikon only fixed that mistake of theirs by releasing their first "pro" "FX" camera, D3, in August, 2007, while Canon was already selling an "advanced amateur" full-frame camera, 5D, for 2 years.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 17, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> That make me wonder - those family types - are they really interesting in interchangeable lens - anything? In that regards - how are G7x etc lines doing nowadays, business wise? Is there a big drop-down in sales, towards the smartphones?


There has been a huge drop in point and shoot sales mostly attributed by the camera companies to smartphone sales but G7x and ZV-1 sell relatively well.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> In short, you're saying I'm RIGHT, and only complaining that I'm right from using that evil superpower, HINDSIGHT.
> 
> Actually, no, my career's big wins have been based on not knowing what I'd have to do next and leaving myself all sorts of room to head different directions. I didn't need hindsight to come up with the idea of being flexible, I just needed imagination.
> 
> ...


Mighty defensive for someone who doesn't care what others think. You also completely ignored my last sentence. The most important question is if Canon had introduced the R mount in 2012 in APS-c only (which would have looked pretty stupid to reviewers) would they have sold more cameras in total than they did with the decision they made. I suspect not, because the cameras and the lenses would have been enough bigger to be unattractive to the then primary market in Asia. Your approach would also have created questions about mirrorless FF way before Canon had the technology to produce them and thus would have potentially hurt DSLR sales. Just because your idea looks good today from a user perspective, doesn't mean that it would have been the best business decision in 2012. Canon made the M to compete with Sony APS-c cameras and as such it was and still is quite successful. The fact that we gearheads would like to see either higher end M bodies and more M lenses or a move to APS-c R has zero influence on about 97% of the M buyers. Heck, they are still buying M50s even after the release of the mark II because the original is a few bucks cheaper. BTW, I didn't call you a liar. I said your premise was incorrect and that is a very different thing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> The EF-M barrel width, 60.9mm is bigger than the RF mount, 54mm, so no, I don't see why the lenses would be bigger.
> 
> If I'm overlooking something please fill me in.



You clearly don’t grasp the fact that the 54mm EF/RF ‘mount diameter’ is the throat diameter – the _inner_ diameter, not the outer diameter that determines the barrel size at the base of the lens.


> > SwissFrank said:
> > Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.


Measure the minimum diameter of any EF-S lens. Do a little basic math. Are you suggesting that somehow making lenses larger in diameter than they optically need to be would also allow them to be shorter in length? LOL.

But it’s apparent that you can’t differentiate facts from assumptions, because you treat your own assumptions as facts.

Walking away from a conversation is much easier than admitting you are wrong.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 19, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.


You are routinely done with anyone who questions your often erroneous presumptions. Sad but humorous.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.
> 
> I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume.


LOL. Seriously? You specifically excerpt the following quote from my post:


> The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length.


Then, you reply with, “_Why would you make that assumption?_,” and when called on your BS, claim you were referring to camera body volume?!? That’s pathetic. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong?



SwissFrank said:


> As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.


Yes, lenses vary in diameter across their length. Show me a few examples of ‘regular’ lenses (i.e., not special purpose like macro probes) where the mount is the widest part of the lens, and the rest of the barrel is much narrower in diameter. As an example of what that would look like, this is the proximal part of the T2 camera adapter for my Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope with a T2-EF adapter on it.


Such lenses would certainly be unusual-looking with a strange aesthetic. I doubt a series of lenses like that would be attractive to a wide customer base.



SwissFrank said:


> I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that …


There was a 6-year gap between the introductions of the EOS M and EOS R lines. How would customers be shown anything about the future EOS R? Your proposal would have people waiting >6 years for the ‘future FF camera’ that would justify their odd-looking lenses. That’s ridiculous.

More importantly, your proposal is irrelevant. You are flailing around trying to justify your statements because Canon made a rational and logical decision with which you happen disagree.



SwissFrank said:


> How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?


As I’ve already stated, there’s no way to know. What we do know is 1) Canon made small size a design priority for the EOS M line, 2) the EOS M line became the global best-selling MILC line, 3) the R series is selling very well, and 4) the M series continues to sell very well.

If those were not the case, your argument that Canon ‘gave no thought’ or ‘made a mistake’ in mount choices might be plausible. But the sales data are objective evidence of the logic behind Canon’s decision, and thus your repeated arguments against it and your sad attempts to defend them have become puerile.



SwissFrank said:


> …I'm done with you.


Even when you make a claim over which you have complete control, you prove that to be just as bogus as your other claims. Seems your willpower is just as weak as your logic.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.
> 
> I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.
> 
> ...



1) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now need, nor will they need (or want) in the future a 24/2, 25/2, 35/2, or 50/1.8 for a full frame body.

2) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now plan to, nor do they see themselves ever migrating to full frame in the future.

3) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now have full frame lenses they want to mount on their EOS M bodies, nor will they ever.

4) The vast majority of EOS M owners buy a camera and whatever lenses they plan to use with it over the life cycle of the camera at the same time. They're not worried at all about whether the 1-3 lenses they bought with the EOS M will fit their next camera five years or more from now when they might think about buying another camera.

5) The vast majority of EOS M owners didn't care when Canon would introduce their first mirrorless FF cameras at the time they bought their EOS M cameras, because they're not the type of buyers that would have considered themselves ever buying a FF camera. Not to mention that the first R body didn't appear until six years after the EOS M system was introduced.

6) The vast majority of EOS M owners never remotely considered if the 1-3 EF-M lenses they bought with their EOS-M camera would work on FF cameras they don't see themselves ever buying.

"How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages?"

Quite likely a significantly large percentage of those who have actually bought EOS M cameras because they are lightweight, compact, and relatively inexpensive.

"How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?"

Virtually none who are among the buyers for whom Canon created the EOS M series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN

Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit White
Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Sliver
Nikon D5600 Double Zoom Kit
Nikon D3500 Double Zoom Kit
Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit Black
Canon EOS Kiss X10i Double Zoom Kit
Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
Pretty clear that DSLRs are not dead – one of them tops the list (Kiss X10 = 250D = SL3), and 4 of the top 10 ILCs are DSLRs (consistent with global ILC market share).

There are no FF ILCs in the top 10, only APS-C. Six of the top 10 best-sellers are Canon products (entirely consistent with their continued market leadership, and entirely inconsistent with poor decision making or a lack of strategy).

Every camera in the top 10 was sold with two zoom lenses, which suggests that 1) most buyers are not upgrading from a prior model, 2) they are probably getting the two lens kit because that's all the lenses they'll ever buy. As @Michael Clark states, that's very consistent with the entry-level market segment – people who buy an APS-C body and 1-2 lenses with it, and that represents their total investment unless their camera breaks in a few years, in which case they buy another entry level body with the 'new' kit lens(es).

The fraction of entry-level APS-C buyers who upgrade to FF is very small, and of those who do having 'an upgrade path' that allows them to use their APS-C lenses on a new FF body is not a significant concern. Certainly it's not a significant concern for Canon, because they did not offer that upgrade path for EF-S or EF-M lenses.


----------



## Dragon (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN
> 
> Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
> Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
> ...


The M50 shows up 4 times in that top 10 list, likely making it the number one seller. A similar pattern shows up in the Amazon best seller list. The M50 is likely the best selling ILC in the world and we keep hearing people say Canon should trash the M line. Amazing how gearheads can get disconnected from reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The M50 shows up 4 times in that top 10 list, likely making it the number one seller. A similar pattern shows up in the Amazon best seller list. The M50 is likely the best selling ILC in the world and we keep hearing people say Canon should trash the M line. Amazing how gearheads can get disconnected from reality.


Two are the M50, two are the M50 MkII, but I get your point. The M series is probably still the global best-selling ILC line.

Some people here think their viewpoint is representative of a majority of camera buyers, which is just silly.


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 12, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
> I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.



Put in the sensor door that was missing in the ROP to cut costs.


----------



## No Longer Active (Jul 14, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


I'm not sure what kinds of subjects you shoot, but I personally tend to shoot at the long to super long tele end for wildlife. For folks like me having an APS-C crop sensor reduces the Field of View giving us a boost on the Equivalent Focal Length (which when one combines what the lens delivers to the sensor and it captures IS the FoV). If one was to blow up the resultant images to the same size the subject will be larger in the frame - that's pretty beaten path stuff. However, the other factor is pixel density. If I was to reduce a FF sensor image to the same FoV as the APS-C one, the number of pixels would be reduced by a factor or about 2.56. So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant. Conversely, a 40MP ASP-C sensor (not unreasonable as the 90D had 34MP) would have the same pixel density as 102.4MP FF sensor. So for those of us who DO shoot at the very long end, there is a definite benefit.

Even if Canon came out with a R7 and kept the same lens mount, it would still work well. When the first digital EOS units came out, the EOS D30, D60, and 10D all had that arrangement, it was only from the 20D on that there was an APS-C lens mount. I actually own and still shoot with the first two of those bodies (for the fun and challenge of it) and they work really well with the EF lenses.

The image below is taken with the Canon EOS D30 (3MP) and the EF 17-40 USM, hand-held in available light.
View attachment 198939


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
> 
> They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
> 
> If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.


Well, that's just not true. Before switching to FF, I went out and bought all the FF "L" lenses I wanted first. Shot them all on a 70D for several months before buying a 5D Mark III. You see, I wasn't sure I wanted FF at the time, but I did want the glass.

The 70D fit my hands ok. An M series camera would not be any fun for me. Far too tiny, and an ergonomic nightmare, for my taste. So, from my perspective, the M is a no-go if I am looking for a crop sensor camera.

I'd have no problem shooting fast high end lenses mounted on an ASP-c body.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> ...So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant...
> ...The image below is taken with the Canon EOS D30 (3MP) and the EF 17-40 USM, hand-held in available light.
> View attachment 198939



I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant. 

It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable. 

I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.


----------



## Flamingtree (Jul 14, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I'm not sure what kinds of subjects you shoot, but I personally tend to shoot at the long to super long tele end for wildlife. For folks like me having an APS-C crop sensor reduces the Field of View giving us a boost on the Equivalent Focal Length (which when one combines what the lens delivers to the sensor and it captures IS the FoV). If one was to blow up the resultant images to the same size the subject will be larger in the frame - that's pretty beaten path stuff. However, the other factor is pixel density. If I was to reduce a FF sensor image to the same FoV as the APS-C one, the number of pixels would be reduced by a factor or about 2.56. So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant. Conversely, a 40MP ASP-C sensor (not unreasonable as the 90D had 34MP) would have the same pixel density as 102.4MP FF sensor. So for those of us who DO shoot at the very long end, there is a definite benefit.
> 
> Even if Canon came out with a R7 and kept the same lens mount, it would still work well. When the first digital EOS units came out, the EOS D30, D60, and 10D all had that arrangement, it was only from the 20D on that there was an APS-C lens mount. I actually own and still shoot with the first two of those bodies (for the fun and challenge of it) and they work really well with the EF lenses.
> 
> ...


I don’t doubt aps-c has its place. I just don’t understand the product strategy in a shrinking market, pushing people to full frame (where the margins are better) makes more sense to me is all.

Doesn’t Nikon have an apsc mirrorless, Z50, I wonder how well it’s selling?


----------



## Flamingtree (Jul 14, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well, that's just not true. Before switching to FF, I went out and bought all the FF "L" lenses I wanted first. Shot them all on a 70D for several months before buying a 5D Mark III. You see, I wasn't sure I wanted FF at the time, but I did want the glass.
> 
> The 70D fit my hands ok. An M series camera would not be any fun for me. Far too tiny, and an ergonomic nightmare, for my taste. So, from my perspective, the M is a no-go if I am looking for a crop sensor camera.
> 
> I'd have no problem shooting fast high end lenses mounted on an ASP-c body.


I take your point about ergonomics. I’m not sure I would want a small camera as my main camera either. In fact I wish my r5 was bigger. Same size as a 5d4 would be awesome.

anyway, I digress….. I guess my point is that if you had to switch mounts you would still stay with canon wouldn’t you? If you had to buy your 5d3 at the start of your FF journey would that have changed your buying decision?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 14, 2021)

Flamingtree said:


> I take your point about ergonomics. I’m not sure I would want a small camera as my main camera either. In fact I wish my r5 was bigger. Same size as a 5d4 would be awesome.
> 
> anyway, I digress….. I guess my point is that if you had to switch mounts you would still stay with canon wouldn’t you? If you had to buy your 5d3 at the start of your FF journey would that have changed your buying decision?


Yes, I'd still stay with Canon. I have switched mounts. The mount does not affect my decision. Available glass does.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant.
> 
> It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable.
> 
> I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.


Yes, the APS-c mode of the R5 is nice. The 17.25 MP image with the new AA filter has resolution about the same as previous 20 MP APS-c bodies (think 7D2) and it produces a proper APS-c RAW file which keeps the file size down. The APS-c 4k video is also very good. I have a 90D and there are times when the extra pixels are helpful, but the list of lenses that you can see the difference with is pretty short. The feature on the R5 that automatically switches to APS-c mode when you attach an EF-s lens is also pretty cool. This feature set on an 80-100 MP high res body would make the whole APS-c body argument irrelevant other than the issue of price point and given the current market shrinkage, I can see where Canon might skip the APS-c body altogether. The M-line is a whole different bit of kit, given the petite bodies and lenses. My M5 is my portable camera of choice and I would like to see it updated.


----------



## No Longer Active (Jul 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant.
> 
> It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable.
> 
> I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.


Actually, with respect, I didn't suggest that the output of 17MP was unusable, what I did suggest is that crop sensor bodies have a pixel density benefit, specifically at the long focal lenght end, when one crops a FF sensor to get the same FoV. Another take away from that image is that Canon could continue to use the same R mount and FF lenses and have a crop sensor, as was the case with the earlier EOS MILCs.

My point in showing that image from the D30 was that crop sensors, even with a smaller size can still perform well, depending on the type of subject - this to counter the suggestion that a crop sensor is _inherently _inferior: however, a *huge *amount depends on what one is going to do with the resultant image. I would suggest that the image from the D30 would not blow up to a very large size, but is absolutely fine for posting on many websites (that downgrade images anyway), social media and some digital display. On the other hand if one is going to produce large, detailed Fine Art images, then you want a significantly better sensor. In 2000 the D30 was both revolutionary and leading edge (and relatively cheap too, compared to their predecssors and competitors).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Personally, I would like to see a R7, and a replacement for the EOS 5DsR with a very large capacity sensor for landscape and cropping, and without all the video stuff, which I don't use. That may not be your position and that's fine.


Since video became a feature of mainstream ILCs, there has been exactly one that launched without video, and while Nikon’s Df was advertised as ‘pure photography’, in reality it was a pure flop.

So your position is that you wish for a rainbow-farting unicorn and that’s fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

Attempts at humor often often fail on the internet, my apologies.

Anyone is free to express their desire for a particular feature (or omission thereof), or product. Such desires should be tempered with reality. For example, I may say that I want a 70-400mm f/2 lens with excellent IQ and with the approximate size and weight of my 24-70/2.8. Given that such a desire isn’t realistic, I might reasonably expect the expression of such a desire to be met with some humorous replies.

Also, to be clear, I meant the Df was a commercial/sales flop. Seemed like a perfectly good camera, though.

FWIW, I’ve shot a total of about 3 seconds of video footage on my DSLRs, and that was accidentally on my 1D X while I was fiddling with button customization.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> FWIW, I’ve shot a total of about 3 seconds of video footage on my DSLRs, and that was accidentally on my 1D X while I was fiddling with button customization.


You didn't have the "accidental button press prevention mode" enabled on the 13th wrench menu?


----------



## JohanCruyff (Nov 29, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...





> I have been told that after the Canon EOS R3 begins and whenever supply chain issues are corrected, Canon will focus on the lower end of the RF mount lineup.
> A replacement for the Canon EOS RP is coming, this will obviously be the new entry-level camera for the RF lineup. Pricing for this camera will be aggressive.



Hey Canon, I sold my M6 and the EF-S / EF-M lenses I owned. I am waiting for a first / second / backup body and I would like to have more options.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> Hey Canon, I sold my M6 and the EF-S / EF-M lenses I owned. I am waiting for a first / second / backup body and I would like to have more options.



It seems like you may have sold a bit too soon, given the current supply chain shortages of integrated circuits.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 7, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> Hey Canon, I sold my M6 and the EF-S / EF-M lenses I owned. I am waiting for a first / second / backup body and I would like to have more options.


You should write Canon if you want Canon to be aware of your predicament.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Dec 10, 2021)

JohanCruyff said:


> Hey Canon, I sold my M6 and the EF-S / EF-M lenses I owned. I am waiting for a first / second / backup body and I would like to have more options.





Michael Clark said:


> It seems like you may have sold a bit too soon, given the current supply chain shortages of integrated circuits.





CanonFanBoy said:


> You should write Canon if you want Canon to be aware of your predicament.



Never mind, Canon. I ordered a R6, so my second / backup body will be the R.


----------

