# Is there an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 27, 2018)

> We’ve now been told by a couple of people that an EOS R camera is currently being tested with an APS-C image sensor. One of the sources told us that they don’t know if it will become a consumer product, but that there is some internal discussion about what to do with the EOS M line of cameras and lenses.
> I don’t think anyone would be surprised to hear that EOS M may indeed be on the chopping block in the coming years as the EOS R system matures, and we expect it to mature quite quickly.
> We believe there will always be a market for APS-C ILC cameras and it it would make a lot of sense for Canon’s mirrorless system(s) to be using a single lens mount.



Continue reading...


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 27, 2018)

I am presuming that the body form factor will be the same in any new 'R' line but that would obviate any advantages of using APS-C. If the form factor is not the same then why bin the M series?


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 27, 2018)

No, it's an EOS-M camera with an EF-R mount, as I have predicted


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 27, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I am presuming that the body form factor will be the same in any new 'R' line but that would obviate any advantages of using APS-C. If the form factor is not the same then why bin the M series?



I imagine size would be reduced if such a product is coming. It's just about the RF mount.


----------



## padam (Sep 27, 2018)

It would make more sense to do it as a low-megapixel s35 sensor video camera, so one still has access to essentially built-in ND filters. Or maybe they are planning make a focal reducer for it as well.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 27, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> No, it's an EOS-M camera with an EF-R mount, as I have predicted



What exactly does that mean? By definition, that would be an EF-R camera. It would just be an extremely small one with an APS-C sensor. Look at the comparative sizes of the EF-R, M5 and SL2 bodies. The EF-R body could have been much smaller and, judging from the Fuji bodies, there is no reason why there couldn't be a much larger EF-M body.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 27, 2018)

I think it far too early to predict the demise of the EOS M. The smaller mount size will always allow it to be smaller than a RF mount camera, even if it has an APS-C sensor.

I am sure future sales will determine which stays and what goes, and M seems to be selling just fine (based on Japan numbers). I can see it staying as a niche camera system, larger/better than the Gx series, but not as good as the RF.

An APS-C R, to me, this would have to be all about frame rate/throughput, and reach. This is a sports/wildlife camera.


----------



## melgross (Sep 27, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> No, it's an EOS-M camera with an EF-R mount, as I have predicted


Ugh! The cameras would have to be bigger than the M series. That series is very popular.


----------



## Cryve (Sep 27, 2018)

it would be laughable if they reuse the 80d sensor for it. 
I really hope it has a new sensor.


----------



## vaotix (Sep 27, 2018)

I'm surprised but also not surprised. It always looked like EF-M and the M line of cameras was thrown out there without a ton of forethought. I didn't think they'd be moving to replace them with an RF APS-C camera so soon (especially after announcing a new EF-M lens recently) but it makes sense. Don't double down on the old format when the new APS-C line can take advantage of the new mount design.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 27, 2018)

With the DSLR you have an upgrade path that can take you to full frame.

I was wondering about this because the M isn't as direct of a path to move to a R.
A cheap R would give them that path going forward with the R.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2018)

It does not have to be one or the other..... Some people want a tiny body with minimal controls and tiny lenses (the M) while others want larger bodies and more controls. There is a market for both.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 27, 2018)

I consider it a foregone conclusion that within a few years, future APS-C cameras will have the R mount. If not, then Canon would be discontinuing the 7 series, and that's not going to happen. So the only question left is whether Canon continues the M line. So the M doesn't have upgradability to the R mount. So what, it didn't have an ungrade path to EF either. EF lenses can be used on the M, EF-M lenses can't be used on an EF mount camera. Since the M series seems to be selling well, what would be Canon's motivation to end it?


----------



## nchoh (Sep 27, 2018)

vaotix said:


> I'm surprised but also not surprised. It always looked like EF-M and the M line of cameras was thrown out there without a ton of forethought. I didn't think they'd be moving to replace them with an RF APS-C camera so soon (especially after announcing a new EF-M lens recently) but it makes sense. Don't double down on the old format when the new APS-C line can take advantage of the new mount design.



I don't know what gives you the idea that there was much forethought. The first thing about bring out a new camera line is the mount. The M mount allows for very small and therefore light lenses. The M lens lineup shows that they were committed to that small and light design language. For example, the EF-S has a 55-250mm lens, but that changed to 55-200mm to fit the size dimension design requirements for the M. Also, notice that the EF-M 32 1.4 is out, but not the EF-S equivalent. Looking at the lens line up and how some lenses appear in the M first rather than the S says something about Canon's view of the M.

I doubt that the M will go away as long as it is a popular enough camera line. It is not surprising that they would re-look at their complete strategy (across EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-R) now that the R mount is out. But I doubt the talks are specific about how to ditch the M. However, if Canon were to be able to build a R APS-C subsystem that is, say, less than 10% heavier and larger than the M, then it might be reasonable for Canon to ditch the M line.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 27, 2018)

..."there is some internal discussion about what to do with the EOS M line of cameras and lenses."

In my view, there is more than a bit of 'anti-M' bias here on CanonRumors (one of my favorite websites)...at times I even think I see this bias from people who post A LOT here.

Canon's executives and technical people will always have some internal discussion about what to do with the M line...I hope they continue to have those discussions for a long time.

They could be having discussions on how to get 'better' (as in more high-performance) sensors inside of an M.

I own a 5D Mk III and two Canon APS-C DSLRs...as well as Canon-branded wide-angle zooms, 2.0 and 2.8 and 4.0 primes...and telephoto zooms.

There is a place for a large body that two large hands can nicely hold...with a heavy telephoto lens attached...and an ultra-modern focusing system that enables birding etc...with a modern sensor inside...a sensor that also excels in low-light situations.

There is also a place for a large body that has a sensor with zillions of pixels inside...for situations where a tripod is often critical (landscapes and architecture/real estate).

And then there are also places for the M format, which, for the money, in every way except for sensor performance, when combined with the EF-M lenses...supplies a superior experience for those who want to acquire high-quality images...sometimes WHILE DOING OTHER THINGS (can you say family vacations and pictures around the house?)!

And what some people overlook is how (relatively) inexpensive the M5 and M6 are, when kitted with the 18-150mm lens (compared to the gold standard of the OM-D E-M1 Mark II/Olympus 12-100mm lens duo).

A quick search reveals a difference that approaches 2K USD!?

I envision a long lifetime for the M format, and for the EF-M lenses, all of which have the same diameter.

And yes, with an inexpensive adapter, all of the lenses purchased for the EF and EF-S formats work perfectly on every M I've used.

With sensor development, the M will continue to be the smallest and in some ways the BEST APS-C-sized sensor camera on the market.


----------



## freejay (Sep 27, 2018)

The M50 was (or is) the best selling mirrorless camera in Asia (or just Japan? I don't remember exactly). They will not drop this line for years.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 27, 2018)

I see two different issues here. 
1) APS-C partially solves Canon's woeful readout issue. You could offer a 7D3 in R mount that actually had almost 10fps using current technology. That would somewhat stifle the complaints of action/wildlife shooters like me, provided the sensor IQ had made the progress warranted in a 4 year period.
2) The M mount issue: Canon has never before shied away from an opportunity to segment a market. That you might have APS-C R mount bodies makes perfect sense. I'd much rather shoot an R mount body because I'm not concerned about size. Others love the M form factor, which is fine too. They will just understand they're not on an upgrade path, and 99 percent of them will be fine with that.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 27, 2018)

And they laughed when i suggested there might be RF-S lenses earlier!

Ha!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2018)

freejay said:


> The M50 was (or is) the best selling mirrorless camera in Asia (or just Japan? I don't remember exactly). They will not drop this line for years.


BINGO!

No way is Canon going to bail out of a large and lucrative market. So they said that they were looking at the M..... that does not mean getting rid of it, it may well mean they are planning to expand it.....


----------



## mvrbnsn (Sep 27, 2018)

I don't agree with Canon Rumors' premise, especially based on a CR-1 rumor. 
The M50 is selling extremely well in Japan for example. There is surely a market for compact, lightweight, discrete responsive mirrorless cameras--hence the M line. Which by the way just had the 32mm F/1.4 lens released.

Full frame DSLRs have existed for years and no one suggested that there was no future for APS-C crop bodies because of their existence. To me the M series represents one possible future path for the APS-C line, as opposed to the APS-C DSLRs. That seems logical to me.

Not everyone can afford, or has need of a full-frame mirrorless or DSLR. Different market segments, budgets and needs.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2018)

The Rebel crop cameras are the budget cameras. They are low cost and sold on price.... the cameras are inexpensive and the lenses are inexpensive. If they were to be replaced by another mount, that mount would also have to have inexpensive lenses. That does not sound like R mount to me, it sounds a lot like M.

Perhaps they can make a bit larger M camera with some of the Rebel ergonomics, but still takes the M lenses.... Perhaps the higher crop cameras (7D2 and 80D) will go to R mount, but the bulk of crop cameras need inexpensive lenses in order to sell, and that means either keep EF-S or go M


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 27, 2018)

I don't see why APS-C cameras using the R mount has any effect on EOS-M. Right now, the EF-S cameras can use all EF lenses. Doing the same with the R mount makes sense. Right now EF-S lenses can not be used on EF cameras but with the R mount, RF-S could be used on R cameras and the camera could just automatically read from a part of the FF sensor. The R mount APS-C/FF duo would be more flexible than the current EF-S/EF split.

As Don suggested, this would make sense for the 80D and 7D2 lines. For everything else, I can see EOS M taking more of that market. In effect, RF-S/RF would be the new EF-S/EF, and the M ecosystem will take the space of the powershots.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> It does not have to be one or the other..... Some people want a tiny body with minimal controls and tiny lenses (the M) while others want larger bodies and more controls. There is a market for both.


m standing for mobile phone ?


----------



## herion (Sep 28, 2018)

Canon's bread-and-butter is the lenses. If you look at it, the M-family can take EF/EF-S lenses via the adapter; the R-family can take EF/EF-S lenses via an adapter also. Native "M" lenses are the budget lenses; EF-S lenses are a step up; EF and RF lenses are the premium line.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> It does not have to be one or the other..... Some people want a tiny body with minimal controls and tiny lenses (the M) while others want larger bodies and more controls. There is a market for both.



I am planning on getting a Canon R FF at some point. I do not plan a getting rid of my M50 when that day comes.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 28, 2018)

Maybe it's partly a way to get cheaper, lighter APS-C lenses out there, so people shooting video on the R will have the option of using them, like they do now with EF-S lesnes. It would be hard to release just the lenses, without any use besides video on the R.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 28, 2018)

An EOS R with 80D sensor would be great. but I hope they give it at least 10fps burst speed.


----------



## herion (Sep 28, 2018)

razorzec said:


> An EOS R with 80D sensor would be great. but I hope they give it at least 10fps burst speed.



I wouldn't mind a larger "M" body - I have smaller sized hands, and it still feels a little too small for me.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 28, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I imagine size would be reduced if such a product is coming. It's just about the RF mount.


as I understand it the M lens backfocus makes it impossible to adapt to the R. So if Canon wants to stadardize on the R for mirrorless and they want to get rid of the M system and just have EF-S for apsc, on a R type camera with adapter and then later apsc R mount lenses, it would make sense. The M lenses just fitting M cameras make them kinda the odd man out.


----------



## Woody (Sep 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The Rebel crop cameras are the budget cameras. They are low cost and sold on price.... the cameras are inexpensive and the lenses are inexpensive. If they were to be replaced by another mount, that mount would also have to have inexpensive lenses.



If entry level cameras end up bulky, heavy and expensive, Canon may find themselves losing their MILC market shares.

If they have to kill mounts, the first one to go will be the EF-S.


----------



## Talys (Sep 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The Rebel crop cameras are the budget cameras. They are low cost and sold on price.... the cameras are inexpensive and the lenses are inexpensive. If they were to be replaced by another mount, that mount would also have to have inexpensive lenses. That does not sound like R mount to me, it sounds a lot like M.
> 
> Perhaps they can make a bit larger M camera with some of the Rebel ergonomics, but still takes the M lenses.... Perhaps the higher crop cameras (t7D2 and 80D) will go to R mount, but the bulk of crop cameras need inexpensive lenses in order to sell, and that means either keep EF-S or go M



I think the future of mirrorless will be driven by price points and look more like:

- EOS M - small APSCs starting at budget T6 prices and going up to a little higher than current M5 price, for an M5 that also has all the best stuff in M50 and 4k DPAF.
- EOS R APSC - full size APSC ith comparable prices to xxD hrough 7D.
- EOS R FF - full frame cameras that range in price from 6D to 1D.

The EOS R APSC is necessary if Canon really wants an APSC wildlife mirrorless shooter to replace the 7D, because this will never work with an EOS M frame. I mean, it's just physically the wrong form factor for large lenses. On the other hand, I'm not sure an APSC wildlife mirrorless shooter makes any sense, because:

(a) the lenses don't get any smaller
(b) you can resize the image in the EVF

Since the EOS R is in the same price range as the 7D anyways, the only thing that you get out of a mirrorless APSC in R format is maybe higher pixel density and more FPS, for around the same price as EOS R. I'm not convinced that's a compelling combination.


----------



## Ditboy (Sep 28, 2018)

Why is it that so many people think an APS-C camera has to be an M product or nothing at all? Or that it can't be in a R body? The 7D is no smaller than the full frame DSLR's, so why shouldn't an APS-C R body follow that?


----------



## overniven (Sep 28, 2018)

I love my M5. I really hope they don’t abandon it. With the 32mm prime it’s just getting more interesting. Maybe an 85mm and a 135mm equivalent It’s a neat system.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 28, 2018)

Does Canon want my money? I was more and more convinced that i will buy the EF-M 32mm lens as high aperture standard lens for available light photography ... and now these rumors.

On the other hand, knowing that the M50 is NOT really the camera I wanted, this little thing has convinced me in hours: It is a real camera made to take photos the photographer wants and the DPAF with EVF is a great combo for macro photography. Tracking compensates moderate motion by wind and photographer itself and lets me make shots which were not possible before - especially whose where the subject is not close to the center or classical AF points.
Maybe my M50 is happy to be mated with the EF-M 32mm lens! And me too.

An APS-C EOS R would otherwise be handy when it comes to the 50mm 1.2 RF lens which would be tele-converted to attractive 80mm.

Options, options, options ... maybe I will ask Canon representatives at photokina tomorrow about their future plans


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 28, 2018)

No, it's an EOS-M camera with an EF-R mount, as I ha 


melgross said:


> Ugh! The cameras would have to be bigger than the M series. That series is very popular.



And? Take the size of something like SL2 and 80D or 7DII and compare. It seems that if those type cames are going to be replaced, it will have EF-R mount. or ppl would complain they can't use EF-R lens. Hence EOS-M, if it stays (will be decided by popularity/sales), is going to be considered more a compact camera.


----------



## DreDaze (Sep 28, 2018)

melgross said:


> Ugh! The cameras would have to be bigger than the M series. That series is very popular.


ha...very popular? the M series is a joke...more people are buying the entry level DSLR's than the M...the M has no lenses to support any growth...just kill it off now


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 28, 2018)

DreDaze said:


> ha...very popular? the M series is a joke...more people are buying the entry level DSLR's than the M...the M has no lenses to support any growth...just kill it off now



Um... ok, let me bite (&/of feed the troll!) Bit more homework and understanding needed, mate. 

Canon's EOS-M series *IS *very popular. You obviously have not viewed the sales figures indicating their popularity.
More people are buying entry level DSLRs than ANY other camera ... Bang. So why would you use that as a moot comparison?
i.e. entry level DSLRs *are* *still* the most popular sold camera on the market.....
_(The only "exception" are mobile phones, if one wants to classify them as 'photographic tools' aka cameras)_

Canon does have EF-M lenses to support growth... Obviously not as comprehensive as EF lenses (which have existed for over 30 years!) The array of EF-M lenses are much appreciated by photographers who need or want small size, low weight and good image quality.
I have 5 x EF-M mount lenses (4 x Canon and 1 x Samyang/Rokinon) for my 2 EOS bodies (M5 and M10). 

These APS-C mirrorless bodies and lenses _complement_ (rather than _replace_) my Canon DSLRs and EF & EF-S lenses.
Around the world there are many other people who similarly have both DSLR and EOS M systems.
There are also many photographers who have found the EOS M system alone enough for their photographic needs.

Welcome to CR. 

PJ


----------



## -1 (Sep 28, 2018)

The M series has a better format for crop cams really. A R APS-C would be way bigger than any M:

https://camerasize.com/compare/#799,709


----------



## photonius (Sep 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> It does not have to be one or the other..... Some people want a tiny body with minimal controls and tiny lenses (the M) while others want larger bodies and more controls. There is a market for both.



but you neglect the market that wants both..., i.e. small bodies, but the option to put on the occasional RF lens that won't make it to the EOS-M line - as we know the EF-S line misses a lot of lenses but the EF-S bodies can be complemented with EF lenses.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 28, 2018)

I am part in the crowd that says EOS M / EF-M are too popular and too good in its form factor for the consumer market.
BUT
That system is limited when it comes to wide aperture lenses.
So I see it to live much longer as predicted in this rumor. But we won't see much more lenses, esp. EF-M primes.

And in addition to this we'll see an APS-C EOS R line for all those not aiming at being as small as possible but high performance and high IQ.

I suppose Canon has the power, resources and will to support both lines.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2018)

The EOS M series will continue as they are. 

The EOS R series will continue, probably with a high-end APS-C camera (7D equivalent) for those who don't need full frame but want the larger R style body.

And, because of this differentiation, lenses that can be made as EF rather than RF will continue to be made as EF because that's the only type of lens that will work across both systems right now.

RF-S lenses will be great for video on the EOS R (because if you're doing crop 4K video you can use lighter APS-C lenses, which remains an advantage even if there's a full frame 4K option in the future), and for the obvious 7D equivalent APS-C model.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 28, 2018)

For some time to come - perhaps the next 3 years - there is going to be a limited range of RF lenses.

And during that time Canon will continue to promote all their existing mounts ... EF, EF-S and EF-M.

But, eventually, the *only* mount which will remain standing will be the RF mount, and a whole range of new lenses for that mount, from big/heavy/expensive to small/light/cheap.

Perhaps there will be FF and APS-C variants but the new protocol and extra features it facilitates will win out.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply in denial.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2018)

I would like a true RAW switchable FF/APS-C, like 50mpx/20mpx, so you can choose between FF or a greater fps/smaller file size at the toggle of a switch or use it with a gamut of lenses.


----------



## Southpix (Sep 28, 2018)

7D III replacement?


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I would like a true RAW switchable FF/APS-C, like 50mpx/20mpx, so you can choose between FF or a greater fps/smaller file size at the toggle of a switch or use it with a gamut of lenses.


Interesting and I guess doable! This could be probably implemented also in a future 5DsRMkII. But the argument to that could be that Nikon D850 at 45Mpixel and 9fps is both! Which raises the bar even more. Also in some BIF cases maybe we need both (FF to target/keep the bird in viewfinder and many fps to get the best moment).


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2018)

tron said:


> Interesting! This could be probably implemented also in a future 5DsRMkII



It needs a much smarter sensor technology than the one Canon are using now. Currently, when using crop mode on a 5DSR the sensor still has to dump the entire sensor data to be processed and then it is only during further processing that the additional data is thrown away. 

You probably need a global shutter type system with on-sensor DRAM for it to be able to switch between a faster crop mode and slower full-sensor - although this could also allow any area of the sensor to be chosen as the crop rectangle, and different aspect crops as well if you wished.


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> It needs a much smarter sensor technology than the one Canon are using now. Currently, when using crop mode on a 5DSR the sensor still has to dump the entire sensor data to be processed and then it is only during further processing that the additional data is thrown away.
> 
> You probably need a global shutter type system with on-sensor DRAM for it to be able to switch between a faster crop mode and slower full-sensor - although this could also allow any area of the sensor to be chosen as the crop rectangle, and different aspect crops as well if you wished.


So a technically simpler (??) - but no cheaper - way could be to make a D850 competitor. I was thinking simple: like older FF Nikons which I think could work in APS-C mode only this time with a FF high MP Canon camera.


----------



## SteveCheetham (Sep 28, 2018)

I would be very doubtful that Canon would ditch the M series, it sells well and is one of the few options out there for a small lightweight kit, with a decent sensor size. If they release an R series with APCS-C sensor surely this is the mirrorless equivalent of the 7 series, faster frame rate, and crop aimed at sports/wildlife.

There is a definite market for the M series. I have a 5DSR and plenty of glass, and while I love the quality, my bag weighs 12kgs, so I do sometimes long for a smaller lighter kit but retaining the quality. There's little choice with an APS-C sensor, the M series, Fuji XT series or Sony A6000. I'm sure Canon know this and the growing line of M lenses makes it an attractive option.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> And they laughed when i suggested there might be RF-S lenses earlier!
> 
> Ha!



What does that mean, unless it's a joke? I thought EF-S was introduced to take advantage of the ability to get the rear of the lens closer to the sensor. Aren't RF lenses already close to the sensor? So what would RF-S mean?


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2018)

scyrene said:


> What does that mean, unless it's a joke? I thought EF-S was introduced to take advantage of the ability to get the rear of the lens closer to the sensor. Aren't RF lenses already close to the sensor? So what would RF-S mean?



RF-S lenses would be RF mount but with an image circle designed for APS-C. So cheaper, lighter lenses that don't give a full frame image. These would also be great for 4K video on the EOS R.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 28, 2018)

padam said:


> It would make more sense to do it as a low-megapixel s35 sensor video camera, so one still has access to essentially built-in ND filters. Or maybe they are planning make a focal reducer for it as well.



A super35 with the RF mount is an interesting idea, and I think that will be the direction for Canon's future cine cameras, but I don't think we'll see a super35 in an actual EOS R body. A C100 mark III with an RF mount would be a welcome prospect.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 28, 2018)

An EOS 7R would i imagine suit a lot of people with the EF adapter allowing them to keep their lenses, or use a new long RF lens with fast focus sports/bird capability. The new sensors multipoint fast focusing would be great. Without native long Sigma RF lenses to compete with this might be financially enticing too for Canon.
Also APS-c means the sensor is smaller so IBIS is easier and should disperse heat easier. Actually the more i make this up the better is sounds.


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 28, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I would disagree on dropping the M line. It is overall much more compact and light unless Canon is willing to make a small SL-2 type R camera with correspondingly very small and light R lenses like the M lenses. There are many people who like the small light cameras and lenses for travel. Now if they made the M5 with the R mount then that would be sweet and some small light lenses.


----------



## padam (Sep 28, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> A super35 with the RF mount is an interesting idea, and I think that will be the direction for Canon's future cine cameras, but I don't think we'll see a super35 in an actual EOS R body. A C100 mark III with an RF mount would be a welcome prospect.


The reason why I wrote that: imho for now, an RF-mount stills-focused camera with a crop sensor just doesn't make that much sense for me, even an EF (EF-S) mount mirrorless camera makes more sense(there are lenses for it), and the EF-M system will soldier on as well of course.
But if they want to shift more ND filter adapters (let's be honest: it is good business for them at the current price) it looks like a good idea, same with the focal reducer if they are unable to make FF video work at this stage.

Cinema cameras can stay EF-mount with built-in ND filters, all their Cinema lenses (either MF or with Servo-Zoom) are EF-mount.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I don't see why APS-C cameras using the R mount has any effect on EOS-M. Right now, the EF-S cameras can use all EF lenses. Doing the same with the R mount makes sense. Right now EF-S lenses can not be used on EF cameras but with the R mount, RF-S could be used on R cameras and the camera could just automatically read from a part of the FF sensor. The R mount APS-C/FF duo would be more flexible than the current EF-S/EF split.
> 
> As Don suggested, this would make sense for the 80D and 7D2 lines. For everything else, I can see EOS M taking more of that market. In effect, RF-S/RF would be the new EF-S/EF, and the M ecosystem will take the space of the powershots.



I agree. I think two APS-C based EOS R bodies will be the the mirrorless successor to the 80D and 7D Mark II (one geared more for video, and one geared more for high FPS, or maybe one body for a combination of both). This leaves the EOS M series to eventually replace the Rebel series and possibly push out the failing Powershot G1X Mark III (for the price they were charging, it should have come with an quality L lens).


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> For some time to come - perhaps the next 3 years - there is going to be a limited range of RF lenses.
> 
> And during that time Canon will continue to promote all their existing mounts ... EF, EF-S and EF-M.
> 
> ...



Canon has supported multiple mounts for YEARS, so it's not unlikely for them to do it in the future. That's not denial, that's just fact . Also, don't forget the CN-E based EF lenses (Cinema EOS lenses ) that are not compatible with the EOS R. I don't see Canon retooling their entire Cinema EOS line just because of RF mount. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon make an RF mount based low end Cinema body in the future.


----------



## zim (Sep 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I would like a true RAW switchable FF/APS-C, like 50mpx/20mpx, so you can choose between FF or a greater fps/smaller file size at the toggle of a switch or use it with a gamut of lenses.



Absolutely, totally what I've been hoping for so I hope this rumour is not true!

Even though I see this as an opportunity for Canon to move 7D users up to FF unfortunately I think that there are two reasons it won't happen
1. I want it to happen 
2. Canon won't sell a One camera solution if they think they can sell two


----------



## rsdofny (Sep 28, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> For some time to come - perhaps the next 3 years - there is going to be a limited range of RF lenses.
> 
> And during that time Canon will continue to promote all their existing mounts ... EF, EF-S and EF-M.
> 
> ...




RF mount cannot be used for too small a camera body. That makes the lens strategy for Canon quite interesting to watch. The migration of EF to RF mount has to be very gentle. 

Can you imagine the reaction from the Canon fanbase when Canon changes the DSLR mount to RF? How many RF mount lens have to be in the market before they throw the switch? Or will Canon proclaim that MLIC is the way to go? Do they have to keep a separate mount for smaller cameras? 

I think that Sony FF ML can shoot both FF and APS-C format already.


----------



## sailonset (Sep 28, 2018)

I'd love to have an R-series body with an APS-C sensor to use all of my 7DII's EF-S lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2018)

zim said:


> Absolutely, totally what I've been hoping for so I hope this rumour is not true!
> 
> Even though I see this as an opportunity for Canon to move 7D users up to FF unfortunately I think that there are two reasons it won't happen
> 1. I want it to happen
> 2. Canon won't sell a One camera solution if they think they can sell two


Usual sales ploy. Have one FF/APS-C that is very expensive and then have an APS-C alone in identical size body and looking that is much cheaper, just as 5D exists alongside 7D.


----------



## tron (Sep 28, 2018)

3. A 7DII costs less than half of 5DsR. Are all prepared to cope with this?


----------



## eosuser1234 (Sep 28, 2018)

the 7dm3 replace should just be this. EOS -R. 14 FPS, even faster autofocus than the R.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 28, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> For some time to come - perhaps the next 3 years - there is going to be a limited range of RF lenses.
> 
> And during that time Canon will continue to promote all their existing mounts ... EF, EF-S and EF-M.
> 
> ...



1Dx, 5D, 5Dsr, 6D, 7D, 90D, 77D, T7i, T7, XXXXD, SL2 (My list may be out of date). Canon has about 11 DSLR bodies out at the same time... so why do you think that they need/want to reduce it to a single mount? 

The M line is small and light and fills the needs of a big market segment. Why would Canon suddenly change it's strategy and not go for all segments?


----------



## Deleted member 381098 (Sep 28, 2018)

Bye Canon. I’m done with you.


----------



## ken (Sep 28, 2018)

pickleshoes said:


> Bye Canon. I’m done with you.



Over a rumor? Man. I picture the Canon CEO reading this, walking from Tokyo to the shores of Japan, with a tear in his eye, waving goodbye to pickelshoes. 

In all seriousness, best of luck with your next camera system. There are plenty of good ones. You almost can't go wrong these days.


----------



## sebasan (Sep 28, 2018)

ken said:


> Over a rumor? Man. I picture the Canon CEO reading this, walking from Tokyo to the shores of Japan, with a tear in his eye, waving goodbye to pickelshoes.
> 
> In all seriousness, best of luck with your next camera system. There are plenty of good ones. You almost can't go wrong these days.



Please, don't feed the trolls. It is totally unnecessary to answer this kind of "users".


----------



## Rattlebonez (Sep 28, 2018)

use the Canon EF mount and it would be an awesome camera 

With the Mirrorless APS-C, Canon needs to match the Fujifilm XT-3 to be taken seriously. 

otherwise it is not a serious camera, just a stop-gap measure to keep Canon users from leaving


----------



## HarrieR (Sep 28, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> the 7dm3 replace should just be this. EOS -R. 14 FPS, even faster autofocus than the R.


There will always be demand for a 7D-class cam. With or without a mirror. Can't wait for the next generation.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

Rattlebonez said:


> With the Mirrorless APS-C, Canon needs to match the Fujifilm XT-3 to be taken seriously.
> 
> otherwise it is not a serious camera, just a stop-gap measure to keep Canon users from leaving



This is what I'm hoping the M5 Mark II will be. Un-cropped 4K with DPAF, 4K 60FPS/1080p 120FPS, Digic 8 or 8+, fully articulating screen, UHS-II SD Card Slot and/or Duel SD Card Slots, and a bigger battery. I know some of that sounds like it'll never happen (this is Canon we're talking about here) but I don't see most of it as technically impossible. A single Digic 8 is running everything inside of the EOS R, so I would expect a Digic 8+ with a larger battery to be able to handle those kinds of specs and features. Heat dispersion would be an issue though.


----------



## dba101 (Sep 28, 2018)

''Bye Canon. I’m done with you''

If you end up needing to use a camera in a professional environment someday, you will be welcomed back.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 28, 2018)

"Seeing what Canon is going to do next is the only reason I haven't gone over to Fuji yet. I'm highly invested in Canon and my gear will go for a mere song if I trade it in. "

You should list your Canon gear here. I'm sure you'll get a better price than trading it in!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 28, 2018)

Hi Canon, I'm enjoying the prospects, so don't let me down. Should be an exciting ride.

Jack


----------



## padam (Sep 28, 2018)

Sibir Lupus said:


> This is what I'm hoping the M5 Mark II will be. Un-cropped 4K with DPAF, 4K 60FPS/1080p 120FPS, Digic 8 or 8+, fully articulating screen, UHS-II SD Card Slot and/or Duel SD Card Slots, and a bigger battery. I know some of that sounds like it'll never happen (this is Canon we're talking about here) but I don't see most of it as technically impossible. A single Digic 8 is running everything inside of the EOS R, so I would expect a Digic 8+ with a larger battery to be able to handle those kinds of specs and features. Heat dispersion would be an issue though.


Actually apart from the M5 battery, Digic 8 (which the M50 already has anyway) and the DPAF being enabled in 4k (same codec) the rest just won't happen, maybe the crop will get smaller if it uses a different sensor but I'm not so sure about that. It certainly won't go to downsampling like other manufacturers.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

padam said:


> Actually apart from the M5 battery, Digic 8 (which the M50 already has anyway) and the DPAF being enabled in 4k (same codec)* the rest just won't happen,* maybe the crop will get smaller if it uses a different sensor but I'm not so sure about that. It certainly won't go to downsampling like other manufacturers.



Have some hope!  Who knows, us EOS M owners could just be getting the M5 Mark II of our dreams...... OR we could just end up with a slightly higher spec version of the M50 .


----------



## padam (Sep 28, 2018)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Have some hope!  Who knows, us EOS M owners could just be getting the M5 Mark II of our dreams...... OR we could just end up with a slightly higher spec version of the M50 .


We've probably been following Canon's cameras for years, so now we can have a pretty good idea what to expect (or rather not expect). There will be a 4k crop, but the frame rates will depend on the sensor, mainly.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2018)

Makes sense EOS-M for the low - mid end eventually replacing Rebel Line and EOS-R for mid bodies (80d & 7d) upwards, possibly same thing may happen in the Nikon side either a mirrorless F mount for the lower ends or a new compact mount


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 28, 2018)

A 7D3 with an R mount would be interesting….. Give it a pair of UHS-2 memory cards to quickly dump files to and you should be able to get away with some interesting frame rates... Then throw in dual digic and you could get some awesome AF performance.... I have zero interest in getting an EOS-R, but this would be tempting....


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 28, 2018)

padam said:


> We've probably been following Canon's cameras for years, so now we can have a pretty good idea what to expect (or rather not expect). There will be a 4k crop, but the frame rates will depend on the sensor, mainly.



I've been following them for a few years as well (2013 onward), and know that Canon can surprise at times. Canon has changed strategies and is now willing to cannibalize DSLR sales to up the specs of upcoming mirrorless cameras. The possible reason we didn't see that happen with the EOS R (lacking specs like the cropped 4K video and missing IBIS) is that it was to late in development for Canon to make major changes without delaying the launch. And those changes to Canon's strategy may be why we're not seeing an EOS M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II until sometime next year.


----------



## zim (Sep 28, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> the 7dm3 replace should just be this. EOS -R. 14 FPS, even faster autofocus than the R.



except the tech just isn't there to deliver this any time soon it would seem. hence the lust (for me anyway) for a proper crop mode on a FF sensor


----------



## bertzie (Sep 28, 2018)

I would like a mirrorless 7d style camera please and thank you.


----------



## zim (Sep 28, 2018)

oh and any talk of the end of the m line just because of an R APSC rumour is nonsense, totally different line


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 28, 2018)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Canon has supported multiple mounts for YEARS, so it's not unlikely for them to do it in the future. That's not denial, that's just fact . Also, don't forget the CN-E based EF lenses (Cinema EOS lenses ) that are not compatible with the EOS R. I don't see Canon retooling their entire Cinema EOS line just because of RF mount. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon make an RF mount based low end Cinema body in the future.



Indeed ...

As others have already pointed out there are many similarities here to the slow but certain demise of film ...


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 28, 2018)

Economics


nchoh said:


> 1Dx, 5D, 5Dsr, 6D, 7D, 90D, 77D, T7i, T7, XXXXD, SL2 (My list may be out of date). Canon has about 11 DSLR bodies out at the same time... so why do you think that they need/want to reduce it to a single mount?
> 
> The M line is small and light and fills the needs of a big market segment. Why would Canon suddenly change it's strategy and not go for all segments?



Economics - cost of R&D has to be reduced in the now shrinking market for cameras 

Why develop two 70-200 f/4 lens when one will be fine ?


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 28, 2018)

brad-man said:


> I consider it a foregone conclusion that within a few years, future APS-C cameras will have the R mount. If not, then Canon would be discontinuing the 7 series, and that's not going to happen. So the only question left is whether Canon continues the M line. So the M doesn't have upgradability to the R mount. So what, it didn't have an ungrade path to EF either. EF lenses can be used on the M, EF-M lenses can't be used on an EF mount camera. Since the M series seems to be selling well, what would be Canon's motivation to end it?



The difference is that EF lenses could be used on the M but the R lenses cannot be used on the M so you can't just get an M body to add to your kit with a simple adapter like you could with the EF system. Don't know the Canon thought process for this but I am sure they looked at it long and hard before making the R mount configuration.


----------



## padam (Sep 28, 2018)

Sibir Lupus said:


> I've been following them for a few years as well (2013 onward), and know that Canon can surprise at times. Canon has changed strategies and is now willing to cannibalize DSLR sales to up the specs of upcoming mirrorless cameras. The possible reason we didn't see that happen with the EOS R (lacking specs like the cropped 4K video and missing IBIS) is that it was to late in development for Canon to make major changes without delaying the launch. And those changes to Canon's strategy may be why we're not seeing an EOS M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II until sometime next year.



Generally camera companies don't care too much about each other that directly, even though people like to think they do. There seems to be some similarities between Canon and Nikon releasing a top-level camera and a new FF mirrorless system, but that's pretty much it, their priorities are not the same. IBIS is expected too early at this stage.

The specs for those cameras were determined much earlier than the leaks came about them. (This is the camera that we are planning to do, it will be targeted at these people it will be able to use this parts or technology and will be sold at this price, the end.)
And generally there isn't going to be that big of a jump between the M models, if there would be any last-minute hardware-based change (which I don't believe in at all) it would happen with much more important models.
As long as the M5 Mark II has improvements over the M5 (like any type of 4k, advanced AF, better EVF or a flip-out screen) people will have sufficient reasons to buy or upgrade, that's all they mainly need to care about.

Yes Canon does care focus more on mirrorless than they used to, but that does not mean that they are going to change anything else about their business strategy, complaints on CR or other forums/channels, pitching the idea of switching to other brands in limited numbers, etc. is not a reason to do so.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 29, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Indeed ...
> 
> As others have already pointed out there are many similarities here to the slow but certain demise of film ...



Film is a format, not a camera system. If we want to compare apples to apples, then lets look at Nikon's 1 series camera system. It was officially discontinued in July of 2018, but only after Nikon had stopped releasing cameras for the system 3 years prior (which I would bet is around the time Nikon shifted to FF mirrorless development). Canon just recently released the M50, and the M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II are in the pipeline for release sometime next year. Now that I think about it, if Canon was going to kill off the EOS M system they would have already done so seeing as the EOS R and RF mount were in development for quite some time.


----------



## rjbray01 (Sep 29, 2018)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Film is a format, not a camera system. If we want to compare apples to apples, then lets look at Nikon's 1 series camera system. It was officially discontinued in July of 2018, but only after Nikon had stopped releasing cameras for the system 3 years prior (which I would bet is around the time Nikon shifted to FF mirrorless development). Canon just recently released the M50, and the M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II are in the pipeline for release sometime next year. Now that I think about it, if Canon was going to kill off the EOS M system they would have already done so seeing as the EOS R and RF mount were in development for quite some time.



Think of it as a pipeline. 

Canon are going to have to make a collosal investment to produce a full suite of RF lenses - primes, zooms, super-large whites, tilt-shift. 

Yes, there are no doubt going to be some lenses which have been in development for years popping out of the pipeline, but new development will focus on the RF line

Over the next few years flipping mirrors will become as antiquated as plates of silver nitrate 

And there will be no need to produce two versions of every lens - nor to artificially divide the mirrorlesd lens population into two - half available in RF and the other half in EF-M

Canon are not nuts - they will develop a single system covering all needs - a fabulous value proposition to customers - any lens fits any camera, putting all their R&D into that

That's my prediction for what it's worth ...


----------



## brad-man (Sep 29, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Think of it as a pipeline.
> 
> Canon are going to have to make a collosal investment to produce a full suite of RF lenses - primes, zooms, super-large whites, tilt-shift.
> 
> ...


Think of it as a pipeline.
Canon will develop products that make them money.
Any more questions?


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Sep 29, 2018)

padam said:


> Yes Canon does care focus more on mirrorless than they used to, but that does not mean that they are going to change anything else about their business strategy, complaints on CR or other forums/channels, pitching the idea of switching to other brands in limited numbers, etc. is not a reason to do so.



A Canon manager said in an interview earlier this year that they are willing to roll our more mirrorless cameras even if it means eating into their DSLR sales. From viewing Canon's strategy over the years with the EOS M, they were never willing to sacrifice DSLR sales then. This change in strategy and continued development into the EOS M line is what leads me to believe the EOS M line will become the Rebel and XXD line, and the EOS R line will cover the rest (7D, 6D, 5D, 1DX) in the future. 

Interview referenced: https://www.dpreview.com/news/80355...nnibalize-dslr-sales-with-mirrrorless-cameras


----------



## brad-man (Sep 29, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> The difference is that EF lenses could be used on the M but the R lenses cannot be used on the M so you can't just get an M body to add to your kit with a simple adapter like you could with the EF system. Don't know the Canon thought process for this but I am sure they looked at it long and hard before making the R mount configuration.


The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2018)

Since the title of the thread has a question mark and it's characterized as a CR1 allow me to answer:

NO (CR2.99)


----------



## brad-man (Sep 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Since the title of the thread has a question mark and it's characterized as a CR1 allow me to answer:
> 
> NO (CR2.99)


You are violating the forum rules by staying on topic...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 29, 2018)

nchoh said:


> 1Dx, 5D, 5Dsr, 6D, 7D, 90D, 77D, T7i, T7, XXXXD, SL2 (My list may be out of date). Canon has about 11 DSLR bodies out at the same time... so why do you think that they need/want to reduce it to a single mount?
> 
> The M line is small and light and fills the needs of a big market segment. Why would Canon suddenly change it's strategy and not go for all segments?


Currently on Canon USA you can buy 22 DSLR's:-

SL1
SL2
T5
T5i
T6
T6i
T6s
T7
T7i
70D
77D
80D
7D MkII
6D 
6D MkII
5D MkIII
5D MkIV
5D MkIV + C-Log
5DS R
5DS
1DX
1DX MkII


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

Canon might bring crop-sensored EOS R body as stop-gap measure (like APS-H back in the day) to replace 7D class DSLRs ... until they have solved their FF sensor read-out / DIGIC performance problem. 

But there will never be RF-S crop lenses. All lenses for R mount will be FF capable. 

EOS M / EF-M lineup will fully replace all crop DSLRs from Rebel up to and including 80D (except 7D class) and EF-S lens lineup.

Already now customers can pretty much have the same functionality also mirrorfree with M5/M6/M50 and current EF-M lens lineup. Momentum will shift further towards EOS M with next bodies (M5/M6 II). No real technical need for a 90D any longer ... although Canon will sure offer it to take money from those who prefer "chunkier cameras with a nice mirror slap". 

In short: EOS M and EF- M are here to stay, EF-S and crop slappers are on way out.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Currently on Canon USA you can buy 22 DSLR's:-



and many more SKUs due to all sorts of "kits".

And globally times 3 for "continentally marketing- differentiated versions" of many crop EOS DSLRs - US/North America (Rebel), Asia (Kiss), Europe/ROW (xxxd) ... 

Canon does not mind handling bloated number of SKUs. Not until some high-profile, ultra- high fees business consulting gurus tell them that they could save a s*itload of money ...


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 29, 2018)

brad-man said:


> The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
> The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.



I think that ppl don't care much for:

- why/if EF/EF-S lens "accidentally" work for the M mount
- what is a technical mumbo jumbo for a flange distances and physical limitations

What do ppl care is:

- why Canon has created two MILC with lens incompatible systems. Forget EF and no excuses here.

Simply put, in a DSLR world, you could plan ahead and buy EF lens, which you could put on the APS-C body. Many ppl did so, including us. Not so in the MILC world. So you use your M for a travel. Great for you. But many would like to use it as a video option (I know lots of guys using 80D for video), who would welcome interoperatiblity being planned in the first place, not as an oversight cured by an EF lens. 

That's imo why there has to be EOS-R with an APS-C sensor, or in a reverse - EOS-M with an EF-R mount. I wonder, how much bigger/bulkier would M5/6 be, carrying EF-R adapter (47 to 54mm diameter increase), and if EF-Rs lens designed for this APS-C combination could be any smaller that their EF-R counterpart?

Paraphrasing your own words - any other questions?


----------



## Stu_bert (Sep 29, 2018)

I think the problem here is none of us have access to Canon marketing / sales data. Plus I think there is an assumption here that Canon knows exactly where the market will go, and I don't think they do exactly (nor does anyone). The market is shrinking, and gyrating towards the photo enthusiasts & professionals. But while there is a market for people who want a little bit more than their phone can do, then Canon and others will operate in this market. Money is money after all. When that market dies, well then you have to have other revenue streams.

And as this forum shows, people want different things. The entry level market(s) are the largest. We have different smart phones, we have different bodies - be that a fixed lens/body with a standard zoom range, or a monster zoom range Powershots, or for a lightweight ILC (EF-M).

The R lens mount will eventually be the death of the EF development. EF lenses will exist for many, many years and will work on the R bodies, but eventually they will stop being developed purely for economics. Canon can do more with the R - either same size and cheaper, or faster and same cost.

The EF-M has those same advantages over the EF-S

dSLRs will exist for probably the next generation, and then they will also no longer be developed. So I think there will be a IDx mk III for 2019/2020, but by the 2024 Olympics there will be a mirrorless only. And frankly it will look very similar to the 1DX, but it will be cheaper for Canon to manufacturer. I put the 5x in the same category.

So that leaves the APS market which I might try and put into 2. The entry level and the Prosumer level. Perhaps the 80d/90d bridges those, but I don't think that it matters per se.


For that entry level market I wonder how many EF lenses they own, and how many of those are Ls. 
How many of the Prosumer market / Pro market (be that APS or FF) have bought a entry level SL2 or xxxx range?
For the Prosumer / Pro APS, I wonder how many EF-S lenses they own and how many of those are NOT Ls.
Finally, I wonder how many entry level do indeed transition, other than the sort of people who frequent here, and just how many of those lenses they put on their Prosumer APS bodies when they upgrade or replace them with nice L.
I know people would like to have an upgrade path, but how many actually use it?

I presume Canon has a reasonable view on all of the above

[As an aside, the tablet & smartphone world has I would guess a similar impact on the computing world, and there are reasonable parallels]

I think that Canon would like to entice most Prosumer APS users to go onto an R body, and sure, with a R lens. They can take their EF lenses with them. Would there be a APS in a near identical body? Most likely, if they can drive down the costs sufficiently, and they can match the 7Dx functionality (viewfinder, AF, speed). If not in this generation, then we will see a 7D III and the IV will be mirrorless.

I think the entry level APS is the most interesting, and I wonder if Canon sees the EF-M in that space, where people can take their EF-S lenses with them. And that very few go across to the R / EF space

Canon must, one hope, have sufficient data which resulted in the EF-M mount design and the R design being (intentionally) incompatible. Ultimately I don't think they truly know, but they are hoping that the segmentation of the EF-M due to incompatible lens mounts isn't going to hurt them. 

Finally, I am guessing part of the reason to go for the 6DII or perhaps what everyone feels should have been the 6DII is because they are still developing / stabilising the tech for the higher end and also testing the market. And it's the market and the data they must be continually watching which helps them decide what happens and how the strategy will change. I would guess they have designs which can be either mirrorless or dSLR style, again depending on how well they see the initial R sales go. And of course that isn't just the APS side, the same in the dSLR side.


----------



## Timedog (Sep 29, 2018)

The m line is a mistake imo. Should have kept the mount size the same. Upgrading to better cameras but keeping the same lenses is what kept me on Canon cameras. Are they gonna have RF-S, RF, and m lenses? That too much, too confusing for newbies, too much R&D cost to have to make lenses for 3 systems. 

I just want a mirrorless 80d or 7d replacement with an RF mount, with RF-S lenses that I can use on my aps-c AND full frame (since the EOS-R has crop mode!).

The existence of the M series makes this not as much of a forgone conclusion.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

many interesting points. Yes it is a fundamental decision with major implications for next 20+ years to enter mirrorfree ILC universe with one or two lens mounts. 

Fuji: APS-C / X-mount and 44x33 MF / G-mount. 2 completely separate product lines, 2 stops apart. Everybody understands that X means compact and G is large, but offers even higher "technical" IQ.Nobody in their right mind asks for an adapter to use X lenses "in crop mode" on a GFX camera. 

Nikon: Z-mount designed with no compromise for FF image circle. Will be interesting to see if Nikon will also launch APS-C sensored Z-bodies and if so, whether they will start a lineup of crop-Z lenses. As they did in DSLR era with full FX and limited DX lens lineups for F-mount. Disadvantage of strategy: really compact APS-C bodies not possible with physically large Z-mount, so why bother at all then with APS-C?

Sony: went with 1 mount, designed for small crop bodies and small cro lenses - E-mount for Nex/5000/6000 bodies. Decided to use same mount also for FF later on. Advantage: really compact FF cameras possible. Disadvantage: imited "design space" for FF lenses.

Canon: continues 2 mount strategy optimized for FF and APS-C image circle. APS-C market will continue to be served with EOS-M / EF-M for segments from entry level (small entry level camera in kit with 1 or 2 zooms) all the way to prosumers/enthusiasts (for first or second system) wanting small, light, capable and well affordable gear up to "M5/80D territory and a bit beyond" plus some matching lenses up to EF-M 32/1.4 territory.

"Pro" and Semi-Pro users and sufficiently affluent enthusiasts will buy EOS R/FF gear. Exactly as they did in DSLR era.

Underlying notion: longer term dedicated imaging gear will only make sense with FF, smaller imaging circle will not offer "worthwhile enough, clearly visible" IQ advantages over "multi-functional mobile devices with computational imaging technology". so yes, EOS M/EF-M will go away eventually, but we are a number of years away from that point. EF-S has reached end of line already, EF is in "legacy, support but dont develop further" mode.

I think Canon's strategic approach is "right on the money". 
As in 1987, they are taking the right lens mount decision. Luckily this time around transition EF -> RF and EF-S -> EF-M is simple and painless for customers.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> That's imo why there has to be EOS-R with an APS-C sensor, or in a reverse - EOS-M with an EF-R mount. I wonder, how much bigger/bulkier would M5/6 be, carrying EF-R adapter (47 to 54mm diameter increase), and if EF-Rs lens designed for this APS-C combination could be any smaller that their EF-R counterpart?



sorry pekr but ...

EOS M with R mount would be "larger camera bodies and lenses" for a market segment that is all about "compact size" and it would not be compatible with any EF-M lens out there. So ... probably not. 

"RF lens to EF-M mount" adapter physically not possible due to only 2mm FFD difference (20 vs 18mm).

mount parameters - FFD, throat width - do matter, whether ppl are interested in the subject or not ... physics and laws of nature apply whether one believes in them or not. ;-)


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

Timedog said:


> I just want a mirrorless 80d or 7d replacement with an RF mount, with RF-S lenses that I can use on my aps-c AND full frame (since the EOS-R has crop mode!).



you MIGHT get a "7D class" EOS R with crop sensor on which all RF, EF and EF-S lenses are usable. 

But it would not make much sense to also create RF-S crop lenses, when existing EF-S lenses cover the segment "smaller, lighter, less expensive over wide-angle to short-tele focal length range" already and are fully usable on R-mount cameras. Not much of a market there.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2018)

mirage said:


> But it would not make much sense to also create RF-S crop lenses, when existing EF-S lenses cover the segment "smaller, lighter, less expensive over wide-angle to short-tele focal length range" already and are fully usable on R-mount cameras. Not much of a market there.



Yes it would for two reasons.

1. Kit lens for the EOS R7 or whatever it ends up being called. Would be a bad fit, pricewise and for zoom range to bundle the RF 24-105 with it.

2. Lightweight video lenses for crop 4K. Yes, the EF-S lenses with adaptor will do the job here. But here's a chance for them to be even lighter and smaller and more expensive


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

there will be more RF lenses - all FF capable - and eventually also some more compact and less expensive ones than the first few.

I also expect price of the RF 24-105 to fall quickly to streetprice-level of similar IQ EF 24-105 II lens. As soon as early EOS R adopters' wallets are milked. 

No need whatsoever for crop "RF-S" lenses in my opinion. In addition, Canon would undoubtedly also be criticized for "creating a totally confusing mount chaos". So no, not a chance.

But a mirrorfree "EOS 7D III" should be possible. Exactly same body as EOS R with new, fast-readout 28MP APS-C sensor, DP-AF with excellent, unrestricted 10fps Servo-AF tracking performance in any mode without small print and priced below 2 grand (eg 1799) would probably sell quite well. It would also make sense for Canon to offer a "lower price" entry point to lure birding/wildlife/sports-oriented users into mirrorfree EOS R system and reach critical mass faster. Once there, these users will replace their EF lens park over time with native RF lenses, spending more money sooner than they would by just occasionally buying some marginally iterated EF lens "Mark 4,5,6". Lots of revenue for Canon.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Yes it would.......
> Lightweight video lenses for crop 4K. Yes, the EF-S lenses with adaptor will do the job here. But here's a chance for them to be even lighter and smaller and more expensive


Plus, a video lens is not the same as a stills lens.... one likes the focus to stay the same while zooming, and one wishes much more movement of the zoom and focus controls to the amount of action..... a quarter turn just does not cut it!


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Plus, a video lens is not the same as a stills lens.... one likes the focus to stay the same while zooming, and one wishes much more movement of the zoom and focus controls to the amount of action..... a quarter turn just does not cut it!



We're not talking pro video lenses here. We're talking vlogger etc. lenses. The key factor is no noise during focus, so STM all the way pretty much.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 29, 2018)

Of course, if the EOS M5 II has full-frame 4K video (and if not, I'm not sure why they would even bother) then the EF-M lens range becomes ideal.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> and focus controls to the amount of action..


i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently. More than 99% for crop lenses. and why should they? after all, they have paid in full for "top notch" AF systems to get a single job done: put focus precisely at the distance to selected subject and keep it there even when subjects moves about - without fuss or fail.

Canon could very well make and sell almost all of their lenses (except ts and maybe macro) without any focus ring. Especially EF-M and RF, which are all focus-by-wire. it would make more sense - if at all - to enable manual focussing control via multifunction slider bar (the one on back of EOS R). "swipe instead of twist". 

it would also help to shave some cost off lenses and make them easier to wheatherseal (if desired).

generally, i am in favor of putting all controls needed for each and every image capture (exposure settings, focus, focal length on zooms) on camera body rather than on lenses. i only need 1 body but multiple lenses. why duplicate all those moving mechanical parts control points on each lens? Only because 100 years ago it was the only practical solution?

It is about tlme to finally and fully utilize all advantages possible with electronic/digital imaging. Transition from analogue era photography to digital age has been dragged out over a much too long time because of (wrong) bowing to some conservative users by ultra-conservative, octagenarian-run japanese companies. and looking at Zeiss' ZX1 botched UI concept, german makers are not better either.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Think of it as a pipeline.
> 
> Canon are going to have to make a collosal investment to produce a full suite of RF lenses - primes, zooms, super-large whites, tilt-shift.
> 
> ...



That sounds rather optimistic to me.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 29, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Simply put, in a DSLR world, you could plan ahead and buy EF lens, which you could put on the APS-C body. Many ppl did so, including us. Not so in the MILC world. So you use your M for a travel. Great for you. But many would like to use it as a video option (I know lots of guys using 80D for video), who would welcome interoperatiblity being planned in the first place, not as an oversight cured by an EF lens.



Here's where I think this forum's skew towards enthusiasts is a problem. The fact is the vast majority of ILC camera buyers never get a second lens, a minority get a second lens, and a tiny proportion have multiple lenses. The upgrade path/compatibility thing is only an issue to a subset of that last group. I don't think Canon sees it as a problem, because most of their sales aren't influenced by this issue.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 29, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Here's where I think this forum's skew towards enthusiasts is a problem. The fact is the vast majority of ILC camera buyers never get a second lens, a minority get a second lens, and a tiny proportion have multiple lenses. The upgrade path/compatibility thing is only an issue to a subset of that last group. I don't think Canon sees it as a problem, because most of their sales aren't influenced by this issue.



I totally agree. Especially with the M series cameras. They are so much smaller - thus serving a totally differnt purpose - that I think very few M users would ever consider buying a FF lens as an upgrade path. I can see M users using EF lenses if they already have EF lenses when they buy an M camera - which is what I tried to do, but the size of the EF lenses makes them almost unusable on the M series cameras. If M survives in the long run, it will be as a separate compact ILC camera line. If there are ultimately R APS-C cameras and lenses that get close to the M series size and weight, then the M may become extinct.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I totally agree. Especially with the M series cameras. They are so much smaller - thus serving a totally differnt purpose - that I think very few M users would ever consider buying a FF lens as an upgrade path. I can see M users using EF lenses if they already have EF lenses when they buy an M camera - which is what I tried to do, but the size of the EF lenses makes them almost unusable on the M series cameras. If M survives in the long run, it will be as a separate compact ILC camera line.



exactly! Typical "entry level EOS M only" purchasers have not and will never buy any EF lenses. And the segment "EOS/EF-owner with EOS M as a second, smaller system" will also not buy EF lenses for use with EOS-M, but only [occasionally] adapt some of the EF lenses they purchased for their EF-mount cameras. 



dak723 said:


> If there are ultimately R APS-C cameras and lenses that get close to the M series size and weight,


technically not possible. R mount "too large" for that. Even a "RF-S" 24/2.8 would be larger than the EF-M 22/2.0 



dak723 said:


> then the M may become extinct.


it will become extinct as soon as mobile gadgets/computational photography reaches IQ and photographic possibilities ["tele effect"/cropping] close to an APS-C ILC system. Then all dedicated camera systems except those with FF-and-larger-sensors will go extinct. EOS M / EF-M will likely be the very last one to go, thanks to compact size, much better price/value ratio than competitors [Sony E, Fuji X, ... ], excellent Canon user interface and Canon brand name strength/marketing muscle, good distribution.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

Thought about it a little more: a hypothetical "EOS R7" with body like EOS R and e.g. a 28MP DP-AF APS-C sensor and full-bore 10fps with AE and AF-tracking with "no caveats, no footnotes, no hidden limitations" ... [and 4k/60 and dual SD UHS II card slots ] ... priced like a 7D III DSLR, well below FF EOS R - say 1699,- to 1899,- range
with the following lenses
* EF-S 10-18 for wide-zoom
* EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 for standard zoom
* EF-S 24/2.8 pancake to go fairly small and discreet
* EF-S 60/2.8 macro as close-up and portrait lens
* EF 70-200/4 L IS [Mk. I] for short tele zoom and/or
* EF 100-400 II as long(er) tele zoom
could be a rather nice setup

Lots of EF-S lenses are available second hand in "very lightly used, excellent condition" for very little money. So one could build a killer "low-cost/high capability" crop setup. With faster glass than most EF-M lenses and body/grip size more to the liking of those who find EOS M camera bodies too small for their hands or for use with bigger lenses.

Note to myself: maybe I should take a 17-55 from the hands of some fellow who has hardly ever used it. Just in case.


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2018)

Except the imaginary RF-S 24mm 2.8 which would be larger that ef-m 22 f/2 would also be 1 stop slower!
So one can see how CR0/even CR minus one this idea/rumor is.


----------



## mirage (Sep 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Except the imaginary RF-S 24mm 2.8 which would be larger that ef-m 22 f/2 would also be 1 stop slower!
> So one can see how CR0/even CR minus one this idea/rumor is.



I see likelihoods different for the following two: 
* "EOS R series APS-C sensor camera?" as per rumor/thread title -> CR 1. "Clearly possible". Especially if 
1. it takes Canon takes to get an "action-/sports" capable fast-readout FF sensor and imaging pipeline together and/or 
2. if Canon wants to create an attractive lower price entry point for EOS R and a nice upgrade path for current 80D/7D-class DSLR owners/buyers and EF-S owners into the great new mirrorfree RF world 

* "RF-S" crop lenses: CR 0


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 29, 2018)

tron said:


> Except the imaginary RF-S 24mm 2.8 which would be larger that ef-m 22 f/2 would also be 1 stop slower!
> So one can see how CR0/even CR minus one this idea/rumor is.



Then yours truly should just answer, what exactly is the future path for the higher grade APS-C cameras like the 80D and 7DII then? M5II or M6II? With exactly what lens? EOS-M lens set? Tell that to any 80D or 7DII owner  Believe me - APS-C EOS-R is just CR3 probability


----------



## jvillain (Sep 29, 2018)

There was an interview with a Canon exec a few months back where he was saying that Canon wanted a bigger differentiator between the 77D and the 80D. If they are applying that logic to the MILC world then I can see the M line being the where the Rebel line goes and then a EF-R mount for the 80D/7D equivalent MILC crowd.

On the other hand how many people have gone from cell phone or a point and shoot straight to dropping $20,000 for a complete FF kit. I suspect only some people with rich parents just getting out of art school. The rest dipped their toe in the water to see if it was really for them with a rebel of some flavor and then started building on that. 

I suspect the M line will be a different category and then we will see may be 2 or 3 MILC APS-C R mount cameras. One very cheap as a gateway drug then a 7D/80D range. But I am not sure those have to be different models going forward. Canon is all about the segmentation though. 

I hope some where down the road some one does a story on the reasearch and thought process that went into the decision making as Canon moved into the mirror less world. It will make an interesting business case study.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 29, 2018)

mirage said:


> you MIGHT get a "7D class" EOS R with crop sensor on which all RF, EF and EF-S lenses are usable.
> 
> But it would not make much sense to also create RF-S crop lenses, when existing EF-S lenses cover the segment "smaller, lighter, less expensive over wide-angle to short-tele focal length range" already and are fully usable on R-mount cameras. Not much of a market there.



My guess though is that Canon will stop making EF-S lenses if/when they introduce an APS-C R.


----------



## tron (Sep 29, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Then yours truly should just answer, what exactly is the future path for the higher grade APS-C cameras like the 80D and 7DII then? M5II or M6II? With exactly what lens? EOS-M lens set? Tell that to any 80D or 7DII owner  Believe me - APS-C EOS-R is just CR3 probability


So just because Canon made a FF mirrorless the fan boys think that APS-C EF cameras will die?


----------



## photonius (Sep 29, 2018)

jvillain said:


> There was an interview with a Canon exec a few months back where he was saying that Canon wanted a bigger differentiator between the 77D and the 80D. If they are applying that logic to the MILC world then I can see the M line being the where the Rebel line goes and then a EF-R mount for the 80D/7D equivalent MILC crowd.
> 
> On the other hand how many people have gone from cell phone or a point and shoot straight to dropping $20,000 for a complete FF kit. I suspect only some people with rich parents just getting out of art school. The rest dipped their toe in the water to see if it was really for them with a rebel of some flavor and then started building on that.
> 
> ...



I think the answer is simple. M came as response to micro 4/3, when that was the hype, now RF came as response to the Sony hype. So Canon painted themselves into a corner and will be pondering how to get out of it.


----------



## Rumourhasit (Sep 29, 2018)

Canon said M50 was the entry level. So I’m looking forward to M5ii also wouldn’t mind if it had an R mount as the M glass is crap I use EFS lenses con my M5


----------



## dak723 (Sep 29, 2018)

mirage said:


> technically not possible. R mount "too large" for that. Even a "RF-S" 24/2.8 would be larger than the EF-M 22/2.0



It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 30, 2018)

dak723 said:


> It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...



Yes. It should be at least technically possible for any of the EF-M optical formulae to be converted to an RF-S lens should Canon wish to do so. They would probably make them slightly wider barrels to better suit the ergonomics of the R, but they optics inside could be identical.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2018)

It seems that since Canon introduced a mid range FF mirrorless camera many believe that everything is going to be that way. I wonder if similar things are written in Nikon sites too. I also wonder if these people are professionals, hobbyists, fan boys or simply internet surfers...


----------



## brad-man (Sep 30, 2018)

We seem to be determined to make this more complicated than it needs to be. A simple solution would be:
EF > R mount with RF lenses (FF), wll accept EF/EF-S with adapter
EF-S > R-S mount with RS lenses (APS-C) and RF lenses, will accept EF/EF-S lenses with adapter
M remains unchanged until sales dictate otherwise

Camera release dates are more problematic since processing power seems to be the bottleneck.
XXXD & XXD & 6 series are ready now.
5 & 7 series should be available within a year or two
1 series is anyone's guess


tron said:


> It seems that since Canon introduced a mid range FF mirrorless camera many believe that everything is going to be that way. I wonder if similar things are written in Nikon sites too. I also wonder if these people are professionals, hobbyists, fan boys or simply internet surfers...


Certainly the R mount is the future of Canon. The timeline is the only thing in question.


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 30, 2018)

brad-man said:


> The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
> The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.



As I said the M lenses cannot be adapted to the R system. Plain and simple.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently. More than 99% for crop lenses. and why should they? after all, they have paid in full for "top notch" AF systems to get a single job done: put focus precisely at the distance to selected subject and keep it there even when subjects moves about - without fuss or fail.
> 
> Canon could very well make and sell almost all of their lenses (except ts and maybe macro) without any focus ring. Especially EF-M and RF, which are all focus-by-wire. it would make more sense - if at all - to enable manual focussing control via multifunction slider bar (the one on back of EOS R). "swipe instead of twist".
> 
> ...



Um, no.

1. You might be one of the 99% you are talking about, but throwing a number out there like that when you have absolutely no idea is just silly.

2. Swiping a bar to get focus? You don't use manual focus much. One would never get the precision needed for manual focus by swiping the back of the camera with a finger. Manual focus is another tool for creative control. We don't all just take snapshots. Some of us just like the challenge. There are people around here that pay big money for Zeiss manual focus lenses that are what? Modern. I myself have 41 manual focus lenses all acquired in the last 18 months.

3. Again, you pull 99% out to bolster your argument. It's a made up number. Canon knows people use manual focus and people pay for that as well as AF. I use it now. I used it when I was running crop sensor cameras and EF-s lenses. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean virtually nobody else does. You are not the market. Believe it or not, those octogenarians happen to know the market far better than you and I. The sales numbers prove it. I would not buy a lens that did not offer manual focus.

I don't know how old you are, but assuming an old man / woman isn't able to function in, or understand, the modern world shows a bias that is ignorant. Who the hell do you think laid the building blocks for today's technology? There happen to be some pretty old, extremely smart and knowledgeable people in these forums that can run cognizant and intelligent circles around you and I, sonny boy. There are some very smart people here that are way past their prime. There are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Yup, there are a lot of pro photographers here too. I am not one. Just a hobbyist. All of them can teach you and I a thing or two. You should not be looking down your nose at the elderly or the values they hold. Show some respect and consider your audience. Just because a person is old does not mean that person has out lived his abilities and usefulness. The Japanese happen to understand that and hold their elderly in high esteem, unlike many westerners.

I really get pissed off when people throw the age of somebody out there as though they should somehow be put out to pasture. If you can't make your point without discriminating because somebody is elderly, you should probably keep your mouth shut. Stuff like that just shows your own misunderstanding of people and the world. It shows arrogance and a sense of superiority due to nothing more than an age difference.

BTW: Those Japanese ultra conservative octogenarians aren't "bowing" to what YOU say are 1% of users.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 30, 2018)

tron said:


> So just because Canon made a FF mirrorless the fan boys think that APS-C EF cameras will die?



I usually don't respond to trolls who call others a fanboys, but you might be an exception. 90D and 7DIII are a high probability. Something like 7DIV less so. There will be some point in time, when even here Canon will turn mirrorless. And then my claims persist and your answer does not provide any future path resolution. So once again - APS-C EOS-R is imo a high probability ... sometimes in the future ....


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Yes. It should be at least technically possible for any of the EF-M optical formulae to be converted to an RF-S lens should Canon wish to do so. They would probably make them slightly wider barrels to better suit the ergonomics of the R, but they optics inside could be identical.



difference in mount parameters between EF-S and R mountvare large. It would take a completely new optical design for "RF-S" crop lenses. i don't think Canon will invest into that effort to re-create the limited EF-S universe again, when existing EF-S lenses are fully functional on EOS mount. Especially at a time when Canon lens designers are working overtime on RF lens lineup for FF imaging circle.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 30, 2018)

dak723 said:


> It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...



Seems a good route: omit the EOS M mount in 5 years or so but start with APS-C lenses for the EOS R mount. A great advantage would be the chance to have only one mount in the (medium far) future for FF / APS-C / Super 35 with a lot of contacts and high speed communication to support future functions.

EDIT: Doesn't make it easier to justify buying the EF-M f/1.4 32mm!


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> really get pissed off when people throw the age of somebody out there as though they should somehow be put out to pasture.



well, i am convinced that at a certain age people should step down (or be removed) from positions where they have direct, first-line control over the future of countries, corporations or any other organization (eg a church). No problem with advisory roles to contribute the wealth of their experience and give reasoned, balanced feedback to younger ones running the show.

what age? well "legal retirement" age in most of europe was and often still is about 65. While there is obviously an amazing amount of individual variation, i'd consider 65 to mac. 70 a very reasonable threshold. even the catholic church has a defined retirement age for bishops (75), but absurdly not for the position of its supreme commander in chief (pope).

mandatory retirement age should definitely apply to any political/public office from head of state/president to Superior Court Judges etc, and church leaders including the pope and to CEOs and managing/board directors of public (stock market listed) corporations.

No disrespect, but simply from a certain age onwards, most people are too much concerned to preserve some status quo and power structures from the past, rather than actively looking for new solutions and shaping the future. As witnessed at ultra-conservative Canon.


----------



## degos (Sep 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon knows people use manual focus and people pay for that as well as AF. I use it now.



Of course you do. So does anyone who also has the mindset to buy an L lens, or a Sigma Art. Most Canon users don't do any of those.

Do you think that the average xxD / xxxD / EF-S purchaser going into Best Buy has manual focus ANYWHERE on their 'essential items' list? Of course not. And that's the bulk of Canon's market, for whom P-mode is default and the manual focus ring is that annoying thing that messes-up photos when bumped. 

Manual focus will remain for EF and RF-L lenses. I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear from the lower tiers just like it disappeared from P&S and bridge-cameras. Touch-screen focus point selection won there, not twisty-barrel-squint-through-viewfinder focusing.



CanonFanBoy said:


> You are not the market



And you, with 41 manual focus lenses, you are not even a rounding error in a subset of a subset of the market. Sorry.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> well, i am convinced that at a certain age people should step down (or be removed) from positions where they have direct, first-line control over the future of countries, corporations or any other organization (eg a church). No problem with advisory roles to contribute the wealth of their experience and give reasoned, balanced feedback to younger ones running the show.
> 
> what age? well "legal retirement" age in most of europe was and often still is about 65. While there is obviously an amazing amount of individual variation, i'd consider 65 to mac. 70 a very reasonable threshold. even the catholic church has a defined retirement age for bishops (75), but absurdly not for the position of its supreme commander in chief (pope).
> 
> ...


I see you have as your signature "Mirrorfree Member". As you are someone who considers they understand the young, you should look at the definition of "member" in the Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Member
No disrespect, of course.


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

i own and use AF cameras ever since way back when Minolta first launched it in its SLRs (Maxxum 7000). Ever since I have only turned an MF ring on a lens in the rare events when i could not get AF to do its job- eg in too low contrast scenes. I found that most often i coild also not get good focus manually. With today's AF systems as in EOS R with 5000+ AF points all across the frame and "up to" -6 EV (=should realistically work down to -3 EV) i do not see any need for manual focus. And if for specific purposes, then with camera tethered and focus controlled by software (eg focus stacking) - no manual focus rings needed on lenses, but "focus by wire" essential.

i like "mirror-free" cameras and would happily also buy "ring-free" lenses. actually also no zoom ring on zooms, i would be happy to zoom using multi-function slide on camera body (EOS R). 

yes, 99% is a "made- up number", but i don't think it is far from reality for today's customers.

it is just yet another example for the *unnecessarily ultra-conservative* approach camera makers have been taking in the transition from yesteryear's analog-mechanical photography equipment to today's opportunities possible with electronic-digital imaging gear.


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I see you have as your signature "Mirrorfree Member". As you are someone who considers they understand the young, you should look at the definition of "member" in the Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Member
> No disrespect, of course.



hehe! everybody here is a *forum MEMBER* including yourself!


----------



## Daner (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> Thought about it a little more: a hypothetical "EOS R7" with body like EOS R and e.g. a 28MP DP-AF APS-C sensor and full-bore 10fps with AE and AF-tracking with "no caveats, no footnotes, no hidden limitations" ... [and 4k/60 and dual SD UHS II card slots ] ... priced like a 7D III DSLR, well below FF EOS R - say 1699,- to 1899,- range
> with the following lenses
> * EF-S 10-18 for wide-zoom
> * EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 for standard zoom
> ...



I'm a 7DMkII user and I demoed the R two days ago. IMO, if they plan to replace the 7D series with an R series body with an APS-C sensor, it will need to include the focus point controls that 7DMkII and 1D series users have grown accustomed to. The optional battery grip will need these as well. Combining those with the low-light capabilities and the additional focus points of the R would be very welcome. Of course, I would also like them to emphasize reliable eye-detect and subject tracking capabilities. It will need to support at least 10 fps shooting. The 80D sensor would be a clear improvement over what we have now, but any additional improvement(s) would be appreciated. Dual SD UHS II card slots should be a given, and I would like to see them stick with the same battery form factor (LP-E6(N)), to allow swapping between any/all of the models that use those. The smaller sensor could potentially make room for IBIS, but I don't do much video and typically shoot at high enough shutter speeds that I'm not sure that the cost and battery life tradeoffs would be worth it for me. They will make their decisions based upon the needs of a broader cross-section of their potential users.

Lens-wise, my EF-S 10-18 for wide-zoom is fine. My EF-S 17-55 2.8 is great for low-light stills, but it is entirely too noisy and the zoom is too sticky for video, I much prefer my EF-S 18-135 (nano-USM) for everyday use, as it is smaller, lighter, smoother, focuses faster, and is much more versatile than my 17-55. The fact that I found a lightly used one for about half the price of new makes it even better. For portraits I use an EF 85 1.8 that I also picked up used. I also found a used EF 200 2.8L II used for a very good price, and it works wonderfully for my needs.

The prospect of replacing my 7DMkII with a mirrorless equivalent that could use all of my lenses while opening up the possibility of using R-mount lenses as well is tempting. If they can also include a small built-in flash to trigger off-camera speedlights optically, it would be even more compelling.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> difference in mount parameters between EF-S and R mountvare large. It would take a completely new optical design for "RF-S" crop lenses. i don't think Canon will invest into that effort to re-create the limited EF-S universe again, when existing EF-S lenses are fully functional on EOS mount. Especially at a time when Canon lens designers are working overtime on RF lens lineup for FF imaging circle.



Did you even read my message? I said *EF-M* optical formula, designed for an 18mm flange distance would generally work fine with the 20mm flange distance on the RF mount (because the rear can protrude into the body several mm). This is nothing to do with the EF-S universe.

If they can essentially do the same lens for EF-M and for RF-S with just a different mount and shell around it, that's two products for two different markets at almost no extra development cost.

And. The key thing here is what will they bundle with an APS-C R body? They need at the very least an RF 18-55 equivalent (although more likely to be something a bit more versatile).

Now.... The only other possibility that makes sense is the new patent for an 16-60 or 17-70 FF lens. If this was a low-cost RF lens then it could very well end up being both a reasonably good full-frame ultrawide to standard zoom OR a very good APS-C crop standard zoom. If they can do this cheap enough it would be both a viable standard lens for the APS-C body *and* would be something that could appeal to full-frame users.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 30, 2018)

degos said:


> Manual focus will remain for EF and RF-L lenses. I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear from the lower tiers



It won't disappear from EF-M because there's still a premium tier (M5/M6) for which this is important.

What I think is MUCH more likely is that the electronic manual focus ring on EF-M lenses could switch with future EOS M bodies into being a control ring like on RF lenses, where manual focus may be one option but other options such as aperture control can be substituted. Obviously it'd switch back to focus if the MF button is triggered,

My understanding is that the focus control is done via communication over the EF-M mount even in manual focus mode, so this should be possible even with existing EF-M lenses if the body works this way.


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

Even EF-M optical formulae would necessitate a major re-design. 18x48 is quite some difference to 20x54. Not worth the effort, i think. EF-S does the job just fine on R mount. people wanting EOS R-sized bodies are clearly not after the most compact setup ... so adding athat little adapter to inexpensive EF-S lens should be no issue to "80D/7D" user group wanting a mirrorfree EOS "R7" with crop sensor. in short: no need for RF-S lenses.

but a 16-60 RF lens (FF capable) may well come. Good on FF and on APS-C. Not sure whether it could be "imexpensive" though, even when only f/6.3 on the long end.

btw: 17-70 and 16-60 patents are for EF mount (look at BF) not for RF, but i don't believe they'll ever bring it to market as EF lenses.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> ... EOS R with 5000+ AF points all across the frame and "up to" -6 EV (=should realistically work down to -3 EV).


EOS R AF sensitivity:
-6 EV with a f/1.2 lens
5DMarkIV AF Sensizivity in Liveview Mode (otherwise it is not compareable to the EOS R)
-4 EV with f/2.8 lens

If one does the math right will find that this -6 EV from the EOS R is in deed 1/3 EV worse than that of the 5D Mark IV

EOS R with f2.8 lens: -3.7 EV
or the other way around
5DMark IV with f/1.2 lens: -6.3 EV

regards
Frank


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> hehe! everybody here is a *forum MEMBER* including yourself!


Some of us don't brag.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> I usually don't respond to trolls who call others a fanboys, but you might be an exception. 90D and 7DIII are a high probability. Something like 7DIV less so. There will be some point in time, when even here Canon will turn mirrorless. And then my claims persist and your answer does not provide any future path resolution. So once again - APS-C EOS-R is imo a high probability ... sometimes in the future ....


I am not a troll. Feel free to read my previous posts idiot. And even CR said this is CR1. You making it CR3 makes you what? 
You know something?

P.S I will recall idiot if you recall troll.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2018)

It is usually the sony lovers/mirrorless lovers who behave as trolls in this forum but I haven't even bothered to call them so...


----------



## sanj (Sep 30, 2018)

Still smaller cameras with still smaller lenses with Canon reliability! Super news.
In the world of cameras with so many features that Canon does not have I persist with Canon because of their rock solid reliability. The next reason is lenses and after that comes customer service.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently.



Ever shoot at night? Astrophotography? How about product photography where you need the item and the background in focus, so you shoot at f16 and manually focus in the middle?

While it may be true that most shots use AF, the ability to manual focus is critical for those others.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> well, i am convinced that at a certain age people should step down (or be removed) from positions where they have direct, first-line control over the future of countries, corporations or any other organization (eg a church). No problem with advisory roles to contribute the wealth of their experience and give reasoned, balanced feedback to younger ones running the show.
> 
> what age? well "legal retirement" age in most of europe was and often still is about 65. While there is obviously an amazing amount of individual variation, i'd consider 65 to mac. 70 a very reasonable threshold. even the catholic church has a defined retirement age for bishops (75), but absurdly not for the position of its supreme commander in chief (pope).
> 
> ...


WOW!

Talk about absolute viewpoints.....

As you get older and gather more life experience, you will (hopefully) find out that things are not so black and white......


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Ever shoot at night? Astrophotography? How about product photography where you need the item and the background in focus, so you shoot at f16 and manually focus in the middle?
> 
> While it may be true that most shots use AF, the ability to manual focus is critical for those others.



Or sport or air shows or birding where pre-focusing can help stop AF hunting and get quicker lock on. Using manual focus in combination with AF at the right time is simply a basic skill.


----------



## mirage (Sep 30, 2018)

zim said:


> Or sport or air shows or birding where pre-focusing can help stop AF hunting and get quicker lock on. Using manual focus in combination with AF at the right time is simply a basic skill.



it was only necessary because AF systems did not get the job done well enough / as well as promised in makers' marketing materials. 
And to pre-focus just use an AF point at the desired location with Back focus key. No manual focus ring twiddling needed.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2018)

zim said:


> Or sport or air shows or birding where pre-focusing can help stop AF hunting and get quicker lock on. Using manual focus in combination with AF at the right time is simply a basic skill.


or video of a soccer game..... There is nothing worse than having the AF lock on one player and having the field move in and out of focus as they run around.....


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> or video of a soccer game..... There is nothing worse than having the AF lock on one player and having the field move in and out of focus as they run around.....


Many kinds of video require manual focus. You may (sometimes) do focus pulls with AF, but if you want to control its speed, you'll need MF. Preferably non-variable focus speed for the focus ring as well, with hard stop at infinity, so you can plan and practice the pull beforehand (but that is another story).


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 30, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> ...RF-S could be used on R cameras and the camera could just automatically read from a part of the FF sensor.



This makes great sense. And with more than enough pixels laying around, you might have the option to optimize the image capture for a 1:1, or 4:3 format. The APS-C's 15 mm high constraint goes away. While we're at it, they could add a few pixels to the 24 mm high FF sensor, make it 28 mm or so, and give us the option for a 4:3 format….


----------



## bertzie (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> it was only necessary because AF systems did not get the job done well enough / as well as promised in makers' marketing materials.
> And to pre-focus just use an AF point at the desired location with Back focus key. No manual focus ring twiddling needed.



Great in theory, terrible in practice. Can't use autofocus to pre-focus on something unless you have something to pre-focus on that is also the exact distance away.

There are too many situations in which manual focus is necessary to simply eliminate it.


----------



## zim (Sep 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> it was only necessary because AF systems did not get the job done well enough / as well as promised in makers' marketing materials.
> And to pre-focus just use an AF point at the desired location with Back focus key. No manual focus ring twiddling needed.



rubbish, you actually have no idea. your use of the word 'twiddling' says it all.


----------



## tron (Sep 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Ever shoot at night? Astrophotography? How about product photography where you need the item and the background in focus, so you shoot at f16 and manually focus in the middle?
> 
> While it may be true that most shots use AF, the ability to manual focus is critical for those others.


+1000. In addition what he didn't think when he replied to you is that in Astrophotography we do not take only one picture. We may need to take hundreds of pictures. The moment we manually focus once we are set for the entire session. This is what I often do during summer nights.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> Many kinds of video require manual focus. You may (sometimes) do focus pulls with AF, but if you want to control its speed, you'll need MF. Preferably non-variable focus speed for the focus ring as well, with hard stop at infinity, so you can plan and practice the pull beforehand (but that is another story).


I shot a lady (shot as in shot a video, the music was too good for the other kind of shot) playing a violin. She was wearing a dark dress and had white sleeves. On every pass of the arm, the video got darker and then lighter... Video seems to require manual settings for just about everything, not a genre of the Auto functions.....


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2018)

tron said:


> +1000. In addition what he didn't think when he replied to you is that in Astrophotography we do not take only one picture. We may need to take hundreds of pictures. The moment we manually focus once we are set for the entire session. This is what I often do during summer nights.


And that is why we have software to push the shutter button every 60 seconds for two hours, and most of us are mature enough to realize that this is not a standard camera function and consequently, do not insist that Canon is ******* and that all other photographers are idiots because they are not demanding this function.....


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

tron said:


> +1000. In addition what he didn't think when he replied to you is that in Astrophotography we do not take only one picture. We may need to take hundreds of pictures. The moment we manually focus once we are set for the entire session. This is what I often do during summer nights.



I don't see that requiring manual focus. Intervalometer software could/should tell lens to focus on infinity [no problem if lens has focus-by-wire] and not re-focus during entire auto-capture series. 

There is no scenario that would really necessitate manual focus rings on lenses in electronic/digital cameras - provided cameras and lenses came with the right functionality software, sensors, servos/actuators, feedback loops. But Canon and most others are not even able to implement simple intervalometer software ... as if that was a difficult or costly task.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> I don't see that requiring manual focus. Intervalometer software could/should tell lens to focus on infinity [no problem if lens has focus-by-wire] and not re-focus during entire auto-capture series.
> 
> There is no scenario that would really necessitate manual focus rings on lenses in electronic/digital cameras - provided cameras and lenses came with the right functionality software, sensors, servos/actuators, feedback loops. But Canon and most others are not even able to implement simple intervalometer software ... as if that was a difficult or costly task.


What about long exposures of several minutes.... even hours?
What is infinity focus? Infinity focus for visible light? and what happens with an IR filter? a solar filter?


----------



## tron (Oct 1, 2018)

You know Canon lenses do not had an infinity focus hard stop. Obviously having their reasons for that.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 1, 2018)

degos said:


> Of course you do. So does anyone who also has the mindset to buy an L lens, or a Sigma Art. Most Canon users don't do any of those.
> 
> Do you think that the average xxD / xxxD / EF-S purchaser going into Best Buy has manual focus ANYWHERE on their 'essential items' list? Of course not. And that's the bulk of Canon's market, for whom P-mode is default and the manual focus ring is that annoying thing that messes-up photos when bumped.
> 
> ...



What exactly are you sorry about? I'm not the one claiming to know what everyone else needs or should have. You are right, I am not the market, but there is a market for manual focus on lenses. Is that hard for you to understand? One guy running around saying manual focus shouldn't be on lenses because he thinks nobody needs them is just a silly thing to say. If you can't see that, well, sorry.

Sillier still, to be kind, is displaying a bias against the elderly and their ability to function well into their final years. Assuming Canon is behind (an opinion without much foundation at all) because an old man is running the company is B.S.

Degos, I don't know if you realize this or not, but people who stay active in mind and body into their golden years tend to live far longer than the ones glued to the television all day. If a CEO isn't able to do his job anymore the board of directors can remove him. I hope the guy goes to 100. I'd cheer for him all the way.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 1, 2018)

tron said:


> You know Canon lenses do not had an infinity focus hard stop. Obviously having their reasons for that.



Even if we stuck to normal daylight lighting, a hard infinity stop would not work. There are tolerances in manufacturing, as is made evident by the presence of AFMA. With a hard infinity stop, any lens that required a positive AFMA value would not focus to infinity (on that particular body) and as a result, there would be a significant percentage of lenses that would not focus on infinity....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 1, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> What exactly are you sorry about? I'm not the one claiming to know what everyone else needs or should have. You are right, I am not the market, but there is a market for manual focus on lenses. Is that hard for you to understand? One guy running around saying manual focus shouldn't be on lenses because he thinks nobody needs them is just a silly thing to say. If you can't see that, well, sorry.
> 
> Sillier still, to be kind, is displaying a bias against the elderly and their ability to function well into their final years. Assuming Canon is behind (an opinion without much foundation at all) because an old man is running the company is B.S.
> 
> Degos, I don't know if you realize this or not, but people who stay active in mind and body into their golden years tend to live far longer than the ones glued to the television all day. If a CEO isn't able to do his job anymore the board of directors can remove him. I hope the guy goes to 100. I'd cheer for him all the way.



We have a paradox..... despite being an older person, I just learned that older people are incapable of learning....

I shall ponder this on my canoe trip next weekend... I would ask Degos to come along and explain his point, but he would not be able to keep up with the pace set by us frail old people


----------



## dak723 (Oct 1, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> What about long exposures of several minutes.... even hours?
> What is infinity focus? Infinity focus for visible light? and what happens with an IR filter? a solar filter?



Mirage has taken his position and won't budge, despite the replies that have proven him wrong. He didn't get that EF-M optical designs could basically be reused for the R mount, either, after that was explained. Same old story - people are wrong and then keep digging themselves deeper into rediculousness becasue they simply won't admit they are wrong.


----------



## KevinP (Oct 1, 2018)

9 pages - I’ll add $.02.

M5 and M50 are cool little cameras. All the lenses seem plastic, but nice images. Suspect Canon will just watch sales of these vs T7i/77D or T6/T7 models. Go from there. They seem to release 1-2 plastic lenses a year, so they seem to know it’s a low-spend amateur market.

Doubt 90D will be RF. It would break continuity for upgrade sales, and the camera is probably 1/2 thru design calendar. 

I told a co-worker when T6/18-55 refurb kits were on sale for $270. If he ever gets a 2nd lens it’ll be a superzoom, and he’ll drop the 18-55. People who want gear buy T7i or higher. M5 is the only tiny EF-M camera in that price range, but size is its selling point. 

RF-S is a neat idea, but I’m making no bets.


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

lenses do not need a hard stop at infinity. they need focus-by-wire with a highly precise, *fully position-aware* linear electronic AF drive and sufficiently fast and effective communication with camera. then any desired focus setting can reliably be dialed in automatically by camera software or by user (via control point on camera body). for any desired focus distance between a lens' MFD and "infinity" .. for any wavelength light (provided correct parameters are in lens/body firmware).

manual focus ring on lenses technically not needed any longer. just like an aperture ring on lenses is no longer needed. for the same reason: technical progress, electronics vs. early 20th century mechanical solutions.

those who prefer moving mechanical parts have a huge choice of manual focus lenses. But on today's new, focus-by-wire AF lenses, especially for mirrorfree system with on-sensor AF, focus rings might as well be eliminated. or be designed as user-assignable multi- function control ring - like in Nikon Z system. An approach i find a lot smarter than Canon adding yet another, extra "control ring" on each RF lenses. Why all this duplication?

Would it not be far more efficient and economic, to make lenses without any rings and put a mutlifunctional, freely assignable control ring around lens mount *on camera body*. As already seen on some Canon (powershot) cameras. of course that base ring should be highly precise, with smooth damping, and clicked/de-clickable.

Really beyond me, why camera makers don't implement such obvious solutions. on digital cameras and lenses with linear AF drive manual focus rings are as much required as a piece of black cloth over user's head. At least we got rid of that one (unless we really want one).


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> He didn't get that EF-M optical designs could basically be reused for the R mount



"RF-S" crop lenses for 20mm FFD with 54mm throat width R mount cannot be simply made by applying some "quick and dirty minor adjustment" to EF- M lenses, which are designed for 48 x 18mm mount. It would be a full-scale lens design project.

you are the one who is not able or willing to understand that, @dak723
so stop attacking me personally.


----------



## photonius (Oct 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> "RF-S" crop lenses for 20mm FFD with 54mm throat width R mount cannot be simply made by applying some "quick and dirty minor adjustment" to EF- M lenses, which are designed for 48 x 18mm mount. It would be a full-scale lens design project.
> 
> you are the one who is not able or willing to understand that, @dak723
> so stop attackibg me personally.



Yes, for the barrel it would need a redesign, but the optics could be the same. Even with the 18mm flange distance (which is shorter than the 20mm flange of the RF mount), the lenses could stick a little into the RF mount, exactly like EF-S lenses stick into the EF mount. The back lens elements are a smaller diameter than the throat (like EF-S). So, in a way it would be like Sigma, that has the same optical formula for a particular lens, but makes different versions of barrels and mounts to fit Nikon, Canon, etc. 
That is how I understand that M lens designs could be repurposed for the RF mount.


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

photonius said:


> Yes, for the barrel it would need a redesign, but the optics could be the same. Even with the 18mm flange distance (which is shorter than the 20mm flange of the RF mount), the lenses could stick a little into the RF mount, exactly like EF-S lenses stick into the EF mount. ...



in theory yes. But it might just as well require a re-design of microlens design on the sensor as well as modifications to a number of other parameters. I am no lens designer, but as a customer i consider "rear lenses protruding into mount" a sign of "less than ideal" lens design. Also for better protection of delicate rear lens elements I prefer lenses where all glass stays "inside", or at max. "flush with mount".

Overall i still think it would not make sense wasting effort on "re-using / re-designing" EF-M lens formulae to make RF-S crop lenses. I'd consider it a waste of effort, when EF-S lenses work just fine on EOS R mount using one of the adapters. I am quite sure Canon sees it the same way. They got their hands full to fill in the native FF-capable RF lens lineup, don#t think they got spare resources and capacity to duplicate the EF-S lineup just so a few people can buy adapterfree RF-S crop lenses. As a matter of fact those who own EF-S lenses already would in all likelihood still not buy new RF-S glass.

But by now I am used to encounter folks in this forum who will propose all sorts of theoretical, out-of-the way "solutions" just to avoid a simple extension tube adapter.


----------



## beegee (Oct 1, 2018)

Please - I need the 7D MkIII equivalent with better ISO capability. Don't care if it has the R or the EF-S mount. I use mostly EF mount currently and waiting for the crop factor advantage for my needs on super-tele primes without any TC.


----------



## windsorc (Oct 1, 2018)

I think the R was announced before Canon were ready, in order to compete with Nikon and try and stop any more enthusiasts transferring to Nikon/Sony. As a result, they hadn't decided on their APS-C approach, and more surprisingly, hadn't got the 5D IV equivalent mirrorless. It's going to be a hard sell to anyone who isn't already a Canon user, but that's what Canon was aiming for. Aiming low, keep what they have.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> in theory yes. But it might just as well require a re-design of microlens design on the sensor as well as modifications to a number of other parameters.



I'd love to hear an explanation as to how the microlenses on an APS-C EOS R would be any different to those on an EOS-M considering both can mount EF/EF-S lenses with adaptors so the optical path to sensor (barring flange distance) should be identical.

You might consider it a waste of effort when EF-S lenses can be adapted, but under that logic why would Canon have bothered developing EF-M at all when they could have just bundled an EF adaptor and used EF-S lenses.

I think it's probably more likely that if Canon were to produce RF-S lenses they'd go for new optical formulae, but they do have the option to use EF-M optical formulae and build RF-S lenses that way, which far from wasting effort saves effort over designing new lenses.

If the produce an APS-C R camera there's no way they'll bundle an EF-S lens & adaptor with it.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 1, 2018)

I have a proposition. Take it for what it is worth:
Canon will continue to develop and release EF-S cameras and lenses.
Canon will continue to develop and release EF cameras and lenses.
Canon will continue to develop and release M cameras and lenses.
Canon will continue to develop and release R cameras and lenses.
The entertainment begins when folks try and figure out which camera the next R release is supposed to replace.


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

canon will *not* develop crop RF-S lenses, believe it or not.

they did develop EF-M mount and lenses to offer decent IQ in the smallest possible form factor.

EOS R mount is all about FF image circle and high-level IQ, not about smallest possible form factor. With a mount and camera size like EOS R it does not matter much, whether lenses are 28-70/2.0 pickle jar size and weight, or not. 

yes, there *might possibly* be one crop-sensor "R7", but only as long as Canon is not able to make a fast enough read-out FF sensor and DIGIC chip to handle the data firehose.

But there will be no crop R-mount lenses. Just a pipe dream of some 80D/7D owners looking at mirrofree crop, because they cannot possibly afford a really long tele lens. Nothing else.


----------



## mirage (Oct 1, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> We have a paradox..... despite being an older person, I just learned that older people are incapable of learning....



that was and is not my point. My point is, that old folks should not be in first-line, prominent power positions making decisions that greatly impact the future. I think it is one of the main reasons why so many of the "traditional cultures" where elders/the oldest were in charge were steamrolled and eliminated by "modern" cultures with leaders in their prime.

in short: Advisory role, words of wisdom from seasoned, experienced folks - yes, please, any time, thanks! Calling the shots, running the show? definitely no. not good. too much "back focus". (oun intended).


----------



## nchoh (Oct 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> that was and is not my point. My point is, that old folks should not be in first-line, prominent power positions making decisions that greatly impact the future. I think it is one of the main reasons why so many of the "traditional cultures" where elders/the oldest were in charge were steamrolled and eliminated by "modern" cultures with leaders in their prime.
> 
> in short: Advisory role, words of wisdom from seasoned, experienced folks - yes, please, any time, thanks! Calling the shots, running the show? definitely no. not good. too much "back focus". (oun intended).



Donald Trump is 72 years old. Mitch McConnell is 76 years old... I guess that Russia led by Putin (65 years old) is going to steamroll the US soon?


----------



## tapanit (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> canon will *not* develop crop RF-S lenses, believe it or not.
> 
> they did develop EF-M mount and lenses to offer decent IQ in the smallest possible form factor.
> 
> EOS R mount is all about FF image circle and high-level IQ, not about smallest possible form factor. With a mount and camera size like EOS R it does not matter much, whether lenses are 28-70/2.0 pickle jar size and weight, or not.



Not much, true. But I like the EF-S 24/2.8 and EF 40/2.8 lenses even with 7D/5D size bodies, to it's not totally irrelevant either.

Moreover, such lenses could be *cheaper*, and that matters even more.



> yes, there *might possibly* be one crop-sensor "R7", but only as long as Canon is not able to make a fast enough read-out FF sensor and DIGIC chip to handle the data firehose.



Or even if they can but it is cheaper to make with smaller sensor. I see it fairly likely they'll make both "R7" with crop sensor and "R1" with FF sensor, both fast, priced like 7D2 and 1Dx2 now.

An 80D-class R body would also be perfectly feasible.

I will be a bit surprised if they come up with a Rebel-class cropped R body, but I wouldn't bet the house against that, either.



> But there will be no crop R-mount lenses. Just a pipe dream of some 80D/7D owners looking at mirrofree crop, because they cannot possibly afford a really long tele lens. Nothing else.



I own a 7D2 and a 5D4 (and some older bodies) and a bunch of expensive lenses up to 400/2.8. I still think crop R lenses might make sense and might even buy such one day. (I'm not planning to buy current EOS R, but I expect I'll buy an R body in the future, when they get around to making 7D or 5D class ones.)

Indeed I'm fairly confident at least some 3rd party manufacturers will convert some of their crop design lenses into RF mount.

Whether Canon will make crop R lenses is another matter. I think they just might. With R design there's no need for physical change in the mount like in EF-S, just signal the crop factor to the body, and I can imagine several scenarios where such a lens could make commercial sense.

Kit lens for a crop body ("R7", "R80"). A small pancake lens for crop bodies and video use (RF version of EF-S 24/2.8, say). A cheap wide angle targeted at video users.

Of course it is also possible they abandon APS-C completely, or leave it to M series only. Time will tell.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 2, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Donald Trump is 72 years old. Mitch McConnell is 76 years old... I guess that Russia led by Putin (65 years old) is going to steamroll the US soon?


By 2020 we will amend the Constitution so that we can elect him directly and cut out the middle man.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently. More than 99% for crop lenses. and why should they? after all, they have paid in full for "top notch" AF systems to get a single job done: put focus precisely at the distance to selected subject and keep it there even when subjects moves about - without fuss or fail.
> 
> Canon could very well make and sell almost all of their lenses (except ts and maybe macro) without any focus ring. Especially EF-M and RF, which are all focus-by-wire. it would make more sense - if at all - to enable manual focussing control via multifunction slider bar (the one on back of EOS R). "swipe instead of twist".
> 
> ...



I guess I must be in the 1% then. I do architecture and interiors photography for a living and couldn't care less about AF. 99% of my pictures are shot on a tripod, with careful MANUAL focusing in live view at 16x. Actually the quality of the manual focus ring is of premium importance for me. As much as I am interested in mirorless cameras (tough I don't need one, a DSLR is all I need for my work) the main thing that keeps me from them is the electronic viewfinder and the crappy focus by wire. I own the 40mm pancake, that is an excellent lens, but doesn't get much use with me since FBW makes me nuts.

That reminds me a bit of the Minolta Dynax 7 they gave me when I was a photographer in the army, with a motorized "power zoom"" that was so useless, I brought my own Nikon F3 to do the job.

As much as there is a place for automated photography where all you do is press the button, there is still some room for a more classic approach of photography, where manual control is not a drawback but a feature.

I can see a few other domains (landscape, macro) were critical manual focusing is important and very badly served by FBW.


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

i know, a small minority still uses manual focussing. to me it is just an old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems in the past. and as a personal preference, no problem. enough manual focus lenses out there from Alpa, Angenieux ... to Zeiss ... and a new one every other day on kickstarter.

but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology.

eg why would architectural images with perfectly still, non-moving subjects typically offering good contrast structures for AF "to bite on" really need manual focus ring twiddling?

any current day mirrorfree camera with on-sensor AF system (=no back or front focus issues) is or really should be able to nail it perfectly using AF. with numerous, small and precise AF points covering entire frame, selecting the desired focus spot via touchscreen - also a manual intervention, ;-) - plus possibly using 10x magnification, should be no issue, even with camera fixed on tripod. this is so different from yesteryears mirrorslappers with only a few coarse af points bunched together in the center of the frame! not to speak if mirrorslappers and their structural requirement for AFMA due to detached, separate phase-AF sensor.

with 2018 mirrorfree on-sensor AF cameras: manual focus ring, manual focus gear in lens ... what for? Select desired AF field and let on-sensor (DP)-AF do its job. Properly functioning, precise focus by wire AF lens is (or should be) all that's required.

actually why should not even next gen RF T/S lenses be AF (only) with an on-sensor (DP-)AF system covering (almost) entire frame and full reala-time communication between lens and body and lens characteristics parameters in camera firmware?


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

tapanit said:


> Moreover, such lenses could be *cheaper*, and that matters even more.


i do expect Canon to offer more modest, more compact, less expensive RF lenses once they have milked early adopters with their "ultra premium" lenses.

but i do expect all R mount lenses to be designed for FF image circle. with only 20mm FFD, there is quite some opportunity for compact and even pancake lenses. eg a "RF 24/2.8" should be possible in a really compact form factor - based neither on EF-S 24 nor on EF 40 optical formula, but new optical design and fully FF capable, not for crop sensor, not as "RF-S".

APS-C cameras and lenses are and will remain to be offered as EOS M and EF-M.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> that was and is not my point. My point is, that old folks should not be in first-line, prominent power positions making decisions that greatly impact the future. I think it is one of the main reasons why so many of the "traditional cultures" where elders/the oldest were in charge were steamrolled and eliminated by "modern" cultures with leaders in their prime.
> 
> in short: Advisory role, words of wisdom from seasoned, experienced folks - yes, please, any time, thanks! Calling the shots, running the show? definitely no. not good. too much "back focus". (oun intended).



I think the power should be left with the old and wise rather than the young, eager and stupid. The problem today is that many of the old in power now used to be young, eager and stupid.


----------



## Joules (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology


Do you see a need for Exposure Control Dials on modern cameras? Or pedals and steering wheels on cars?

Automation can work great and deliver potentially superior results. But it can also kill the fun, the satisfaction, it detaches your involvement with your work. As I see it, dedicated cameras are mostly enthusiast products these days. And they should offer all the controls they can, so that somebody who is willing to do that can get as involved with his or her imaging as they care to be. Just because all settings could be accessed over a screen, and the images would likely be the same, the shooting experience would probably be less pleasant for a large number of people. 

To get back on topic, it seems common knowledge that a smaller backfocus distance allows wide angle lenses to be smaller than their counterparts for higher distances.

Do we have some reference for the way image circle size affects lens size? I think it's right to assume costs increase with larger image circles, but would an 50mm RF-S be any different in size than a 50mm RF for FF? Would it be different at other focal lengths?


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

I am all for having possibilities to control every aspect of image capture myself, but by 2018 means - not being forced to use mechanical contraptions and shenanigans dating back to the 19th / early 20th century [when they were the only possible solution]. Things have evolved. We don't need horse carts any longer, we do have cars. And Zeppelins have also gone out of fashion in favor of heavier than air craft. Only imaging gear seems to be steeped in the past forever.

Tapping a touchscreen to select where I want to have sharp focus in the frame and then just letting a capable auto-focus system do its job is much more to my liking. Or having a capable scene-aware auto-exposure system taking care of "balanced exposures", where i only need to change something, if I specifically want a different exposure needed for a specific creative idea of mine. Not having to take care of the mundane technical aspects of photography allows me to FOCUS my attention (pun intended) on subject, subject interaction (if needed), overall scene, foreground, background, light/ing, composition, right moment - that's our task as photographers, that's were we and our personal visions and imagination make all the difference and "the image". 

I know that some photographers consider themselves (also) as "skilled operators of some complex machinery not everyone can handle" and unfortunately all camera makers are prone to succumb to the notion that "more knobs, buttons, dials, rings, wheels and other physical control points on cameras and on each and every lens are ... better. Witness Canon's decision to add yet another turning "control" ring to each RF lens. Much smarter approach in my opinion is the one followed by Nikon with new Z-lenses: make the mostly un-used manual focus ring (on Z lenses) user-assignable and useful as control ring for other tasks. Even smarter would be adding a freely assignable control ring to camera body around lens mount base [as seen for example on some Canon Powershot models] and eliminate it from lenses.


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> I think the power should be left with the old and wise rather than the young, eager and stupid. The problem today is that many of the old in power now used to be young, eager and stupid.



the problem is that many of the older ones in power now are even more stupid than the young.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> the problem is that many of the older ones in power now are even more stupid than the young.



Absolutely. Old, stubborn and stupid is not much better.


----------



## photonius (Oct 2, 2018)

Pondering over this problem, I do think that Canon will develop RF-S (RF APC). 
At present, Canon just wants to take away the pressure that has been building up from the Sony mirrorless (and Nikon) FF. FF is still upmarket, so they offer big and expensive lenses that showcase the potential of the new mount. 
But a key aspect of the RF mount is the new pins and improved transfer speeds etc. So, the RF mount is future proof. EF and EF-S will eventually die when mirror boxes become technically obsolete. As far as I can tell, the M mount uses the same communication protocol as EF lenses. Thus, if an EOS-M system is kept alive in parallel with the RF system, at some point it will become obsolete when new cool things can be done with the RF mount.
The RF mount has actually the same inner diameter as the EF mount (54mm). And the EF mount is being used to make small Rebel dSLRs for years now. Of course, mirrorless APS-C cameras can be even smaller, but even though it may look ugly, a small mirrorless body with APS-C sensor should be possible. 
There is still a big price, weight, and size advantage for APS-C lenses in the wide-angle range. (see EF-S lenses versus EF lenses). 
People could argue that EOS-M can cater to the entry/compact market, which in a way is true, but then one never has to full potential of Canon's lens line-up (once EF/EF-S is dead) due to RF incompatibility. And surely Canon will focus lens development on RF (like it is now doing for EF). And Canon would never develop the EOS-M line into a major line with lots of lenses. 
In the end, only the RF mount has all the new communication features. And I doubt Canon would come up with an EOS-M mark2 mount with upgraded protocol. Rather they would focus on making cheap and small RF APS-C bodies, together with RF-S lenses, rather than bringing EOS-M into the future (That doesn't mean that EOS-M won't be staying around for many years to come).


----------



## photonius (Oct 2, 2018)

Joules said:


> Do you see a need for Exposure Control Dials on modern cameras? Or pedals and steering wheels on cars?
> 
> Automation can work great and deliver potentially superior results. But it can also kill the fun, the satisfaction, it detaches your involvement with your work. As I see it, dedicated cameras are mostly enthusiast products these days. And they should offer all the controls they can, so that somebody who is willing to do that can get as involved with his or her imaging as they care to be. Just because all settings could be accessed over a screen, and the images would likely be the same, the shooting experience would probably be less pleasant for a large number of people.
> 
> ...



Yes, wide-angle lenses will be simpler with the shorter flange distance. A 24mm lens on a 45mm flange would need a retrofocus design, which falls away with a 20mm flange distance.
The image circle is another issue. For long lenses it doesn't matter much (front lens dictates the physics), but for shorter, fast lenses, you need more glass diameter to cover the larger sensor. Also, because of high image quality demands, the FF lenses need more elements to correct for aberrations at the image edge. (Think the old classic 50mm f1.4 lenses which are pretty bad wide open away from the center, nobody is prepared to accept that anymore, that's why you have now 1 kg monsters....)
But for smaller apertures, e.g. a 35mm f4 lens, it wouldn't make much difference in lens design to cover APS or FF. There (35mm/4 is < 10 mm ) the lens diameter is smaller than either sensor size. The FF lens might just need a bit bigger barrel to avoid vignetting. One can see that for most purposes no EF-S primes were developed by Canon, people have to resort to EF lenses.
For lenses in the 10mm to 20mm range, you still would need retrofocus designs, so, an APS-C lens (think EF-S 10-24) would still be more compact than FF lenses.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> i know, a small minority still uses manual focussing. to me it is just an old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems in the past. and as a personal preference, no problem. enough manual focus lenses out there from Alpa, Angenieux ... to Zeiss ... and a new one every other day on kickstarter.
> 
> but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology.
> 
> ...


Why does your car have airbags? Every now and then, you need it.

Same for manual focus.


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

Well, although for you and a few others manual focussing may be a life-saver, it is not really comparable to life-saving safety equipment beneficial to 100% of users. Right? 

Not saying there should be NO lenses with manual focus rings. As we know, currently ALL lenses - MF and AF - come with that ring. I would just be able to have a choice and get "2018 contemporary, native mirrorfree AF lenses without manual focus ring". At a somewhat lower price than lenses with, of course.

It is exactly the same as with "stills cameras without video capture". I simply dislike being forced to pay for items I absolutely don't need or want. Especially when those items really are only used by (very) small minorities of customers.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> Well, although for you and a few others manual focussing may be a life-saver, it is not really comparable to life-saving safety equipment beneficial to 100% of users. Right?
> 
> Not saying there should be NO lenses with manual focus rings. As we know, currently ALL lenses - MF and AF - come with that ring. I would just be able to have a choice and get "2018 contemporary, native mirrorfree AF lenses without manual focus ring". At a somewhat lower price than lenses with, of course.
> 
> It is exactly the same as with "stills cameras without video capture". I simply dislike being forced to pay for items I absolutely don't need or want. Especially when those items really are only used by (very) small minorities of customers.


But what if Canon (or other camera companies) have done the research on customer wants and needs, and determined that the demand for manual focusing is there? What if they have determined that leaving it out will hurt sales more than the savings of not having it?

Although you or I have no idea if such a study has been done, we should consider that user interface design is a major criteria with Canon, and the odds are that they have considered and discussed every single knob, button, ring, slider, jack, door, or display on their gear. The fact that focus rings and video are there on every camera and lens indicates that these are functions that Canon (and others) have deemed critical, and thus, your wants and needs are in the minority. Since your viewpoint is in the minority, devices tailored to you would be a much smaller production run, and in the end you would end up paying MORE for a camera without video or a lens without a focus ring.


----------



## mirage (Oct 2, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ndicates that these are functions that Canon (and others) have deemed critical, and thus, your wants and needs are in the minority.



Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.

I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)


----------



## dak723 (Oct 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.
> 
> I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)



Your statements have absolutely no logical basis. Your premise, it seems, is that since we now have AF, we no longer need manual focus. Despite the fact that AF:

a) does not always work.
b) is often not as precise

So, the new technology should replace the old and no longer be offered even though: 

a) You will miss some shots when the camera does not AF (yes, it happens - even more with mirrorless than DSLRs in my experience - often shooting sunsets).
b) You can at times get better results with manual focus.

In other words, being "with the times" means we should accept poorer results.

Yes, very logical!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 3, 2018)

mirage said:


> Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.
> 
> I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)


You are probably not old enough to remember shooting with DSLRs before they included video.... or film cameras before AF was invented....


----------



## mirage (Oct 3, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You are probably not old enough to remember shooting with DSLRs before they included video.... or film cameras before AF was invented....



sorry, i have to disappoint you. 

Started out with an Agfa Silette, handed down to me by my godfather uncle, when he got himself his first SLR. My first own camera, a *full frame*  135 format viewfinder camera with manual focus 50mm/2.8 lens.






ofc I also had to use a separate lightmeter (Gossen) to determine exposure. 






Fallback option was the time-honoured method of:







1977 i bought a Minolta XD-7 SLR [USA: XD-11] after working on construction sites for 2 summers as junior helper for a plumber. A fabulous piece of meticulously crafted fine mechanics.




Could only afford a Rokkor MD 50/1.7 lens. f/1.4 or f/1.2 was out of reach. Now i had TTL auto-exposure with both Av + Tv semi-auto modes, wow! However, despite its "rock-solid metal shell", the camera was soon totalled when it hit the asphalt in a minor bicycle accident. So I worked another summer and got myself a new XD-7 plus MD 50/1.7 and MD 24/2.8.

Cost of film was a constant issue for me too. I shot almost exclusively on Kodachrome 64. Dynamic range non-existant severly limited and not much room for exposure error. And even when i perfectly nailed exposure and was happy with composition, many of my captures were not well focused. I had ongoing difficulties using the darn split prism and microprisms in viewfinder that always just went black on me, thanks to my moderately fast consumer lenses and often precious little light.

In 1990 i bought my first SLR with AF, a Minolta (Maxxum) 8000i. It was a god-sent revelation for me.




If i recall correctly, it had a whopping 3 AF points! I loved it nevertheless. "Point, AF and re-compose image" got me a much higher ratio of shots in focus than all through my manual focus days!

And I lived happily ever after, without twiddling manual focus rings, except in an absolute pinch - and usually without much success either. 

So now, in 2018 I am ready to get me some nice "pure-AF" lenses along with a decent FF-sensor mirrorfree camera.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 3, 2018)

For video I sometimes focus manually to something around the hyperfocal distance for the focal length and aperture rather than being concerned whether the autofocus setting were right to track my main subjects and letting the camera know who I wanted it to track for the moment. Sometimes manual is less work than automatic. That also reduces the risk of having the focus do some searching during the video.

I don't much like focus by wire, so I set lenses that have that almost always to AF. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 24-105mm STM kit lens, and the autofocus has been flawless. I use that lens in situations where I don't need to do much of anything manually anyway. The FBW is the only thing I don't like about it, and I don't much use it accordingly.


----------



## RGF (Oct 4, 2018)

Not sure that Canon would go the route of an APS-C sensor in the ML. they may simply make a high MP camera and when using an EF-S lens you will get a reduced size image. I tried an EF-S lens on an R body today and the resultant file was 14.5MP.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 4, 2018)

RGF said:


> Not sure that Canon would go the route of an APS-C sensor in the ML. they may simply make a high MP camera and when using an EF-S lens you will get a reduced size image. I tried an EF-S lens on an R body today and the resultant file was 14.5MP.


What happens when you try a third party crop lens on it?


----------



## RGF (Oct 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> What happens when you try a third party crop lens on it?



Don't know for sure. I was a photo expo and there was a canon table there so I tested it. Only 1 lens.


----------



## tapanit (Oct 5, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> I think the power should be left with the old and wise rather than the young, eager and stupid. The problem today is that many of the old in power now used to be young, eager and stupid.



... and instead of old and wise, they're old, eager and stupid.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> i know, a small minority still uses manual focussing. to me it is just an old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems in the past. and as a personal preference, no problem. enough manual focus lenses out there from Alpa, Angenieux ... to Zeiss ... and a new one every other day on kickstarter.
> 
> but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology.
> 
> ...


The problem is that nobody has yet invented a camera system that can read the photographer's mind. Auto focus systems are accurate, but sometimes they focus on the wrong subject and that is where manual focus is needed - to guide the camera to the point you want to be in sharpest focus. This is particularly important for product photography and macro work where very precise focus is required. 
To call it an "old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems" or dismiss it as just "a personal preference" demonstrates that you don't really understand how or why manual focus might be used.


----------



## mirage (Oct 5, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> The problem is that nobody has yet invented a camera system that can read the photographer's mind. Auto focus systems are accurate, but sometimes they focus on the wrong subject and that is where manual focus is needed - to guide the camera to the point you want to be in sharpest focus. This is particularly important for product photography and macro work where very precise focus is required.
> To call it an "old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems" or dismiss it as just "a personal preference" demonstrates that you don't really understand how or why manual focus might be used.



No, camera does *not* have to know "what user wants to focus on". Have a look at Canon EOS R ... on-sensor (DP) AF system with 5000+ AF fields, covering (almost) the entire frame, accurate enough to allow "targetting" any desired point in the frame to AUTO-focus on. Even when camera is locked down on tripod. 

For high-quality macro shoots I'd use tethered focus stacking and control starting point and end-point for focus distance and dial in desired intervals for software to then precisely AUTO-run the capture sequence. 

No need whatsoever for "manual focusing by twiddling a ring on a lens" today - other than for personal preference. No problem, those who do can choose any lens. But I would like to finally have a choice of "pure-AF" lenses too.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> No, camera does *not* have to know "what user wants to focus on". Have a look at Canon EOS R ... on-sensor (DP) AF system with 5000+ AF fields, covering (almost) the entire frame, accurate enough to allow "targetting" any desired point in the frame to AUTO-focus on. Even when camera is locked down on tripod.
> 
> No need whatsoever for "manual focusing by twiddling a ring on a lens" today - other than for personal preference. No problem, those who do can choose any lens. But I would like to finally have a choice of "pure-AF" lenses too.



And in a situation where the scene or lighting or both is such that none of those 5000+ AF locations are able to achieve focus (I, for example, have never successfully autofocused on a starscape), even those which are located where the photographer doesn't want to focus, the EOS-R has a really neat option: *not taking a picture at all! *Personally, I'd rather twiddle the ring.


----------



## mirage (Oct 6, 2018)

yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.

BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?

with focus by wire lenses "manual focus" could just as well be controlled from camera body. Either by dialing in desired focus distance - anything between MFD and "infinity, visible light", "infinity IR" in menu/selection by tapping touch screen or by using a physical control element on camera body - eg a "multifunction ring around lens base" or a "really right", precise version of the "multifunction slider bar" (the one on EOS R seems 1st gen and botched) ?

I really question the need for a manual focus ring on each and every lens. no prob, if there are many lenses with such a ring. All i would like to have is a good choice of "pure AF" lenses without it. just like a "pure stills camera without video recording.

So i'll keep asking for it "in public". Lens makers do notice. it also took a while of "complaining and whining" on the net, but today all major 3rd party lens makers are suddenly able to match zoom and focus ;-) ring turn direction to respective lens mount convention. Before i started my "campaign", many of their lenses only has with "Nikon leftie wrong turn" rings even in Canon EF mount versions. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron ... i was among the very first to "massively bitch and moan: wrong turn rings, will not buy" in response to every new lens announcement/review. makers apparently took notice, they realized there is a "real life, usage" problem and today we get most lenses with mount-matched turning ring/s. (to me only zoom rings are relevant of course).

had i just shut up and put up like most others, we might never have gotten it. 

and now that we are finally getting some choice of "FF mirrorfree systens" it is time to ask for things like "pure stills, video-free cameras", for "focus ring-free lenses" and "moving mechanical parts-free cameras (global shutter)".

in other words: i push ultra-conservative imaging gear makers to come up with *21st century interchangeable lens camera systems*.

yes, i am on a mission, please bear with me.


----------



## Talys (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> i do expect Canon to offer more modest, more compact, less expensive RF lenses once they have milked early adopters with their "ultra premium" lenses.
> 
> but i do expect all R mount lenses to be designed for FF image circle. with only 20mm FFD, there is quite some opportunity for compact and even pancake lenses. eg a "RF 24/2.8" should be possible in a really compact form factor - based neither on EF-S 24 nor on EF 40 optical formula, but new optical design and fully FF capable, not for crop sensor, not as "RF-S".
> 
> APS-C cameras and lenses are and will remain to be offered as EOS M and EF-M.


I suspect Canon and Nikon's new lenses will not be too far off the price of Sony's. However, it's worth noting that Canon's RF 24-105 is cheaper than Sony's FE24-105/4 -- and it didn't have to be. In Canadian dollars, it's not unsubstantial -- $1700 for the Sony FE vs $1450 for the Canon RF.


----------



## Talys (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.
> 
> BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?
> 
> ...



It's a really easy formula. 

If they don't put a focus ring on the lens, some people, like me, will never buy it. I mean, not even if it's half the price -- the lens is of nearly no value to me. MF is important for all sorts of things, like macro, where the working depth of field is extremely sensitive; for product photography, where nailing on the right part of the product is critical; for nature portraiture... and I could go on and on.

On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL


----------



## mirage (Oct 6, 2018)

Canon could just not go to Sony FE pricing in one step on 24-105 since EF version(s) are also available at much lower pricepoints. 
So they increased price on RF 24-105 "only" by 40% ... without much improvement in IQ and size/ weight. 

But overall I am very confident, Canon will maintain their price advantage over (absurdly priced) Sony FE lenses. It is clear that Sony FE lens sizes and prices are severely limiting their ability to grow their system's market share. Would Sony price their FE lenses as they price their cameras - eg A7 III compared to EOS R ;-) - there could have built a much larger customer base by now. So, "stupid Sony" has helped Canon and Nikon to sit back for 6 full years and sell mirrorslappers and lenses until switching/bleeding of customers finally forced them to offer mirrorfree FF as well.

ofc Canon will first milk early adopters with f/2 zooms and f/1.2 prime lens behemoths. But market for these is a very small niche. f/2.8 zooms are a bit larger niche and f/4 and f/3.5-5.6 zooms are where the volume is. Those will be priced "reasonably", as in the "EF past".


----------



## mirage (Oct 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> ... On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL



yep i guess that pretty well reflects what camera makers with octagenarian leaders have been thinking up to now. and what german range finder makers thought about SLRs until the mid 1960s. 

in reality, only a very very small percentage of potential buyers will balk and not buy "focus ring free lenses", especially when it is not a macro or other "special purpose lens". even less so, when there is a good way to directly and precisely control focus distance from camera body.

i bet, as soon as one maker starts selling a series of eg "super compact, native mirrorfree, f/1.8-2.8, optically decent, fully wheathersealed, focus ring-free" prime lenses at "very decent prices" they will sell well and all others will follow suit sooner or later.

so, i'll keep asking for it whenever possible.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 6, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes, fair enough, star scapes. ok, no AF.
> 
> BUT: do we really need a focus ring to twiddle on each and every lens?
> 
> with focus by wire lenses "manual focus" could just as well be controlled from camera body.



Strictly speaking, no. Millions of point and shoot cameras, smart phones, tablets, etc demonstrate that one doesn’t *need* a focus ring on every lens. Powerzoom lenses demonstrate one doesn’t need a zoom ring.

Personally, like Talys, I wouldn’t buy a standalone camera without one, as if there is no way to manually focus, there is no guarantee I’ll be able to take the shot I want to. It’s a failsafe to what’s arguably the least reliable function in digital cameras.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> If they don't put a focus ring on the lens, some people, like me, will never buy it. I mean, not even if it's half the price -- the lens is of nearly no value to me. MF is important for all sorts of things, like macro, where the working depth of field is extremely sensitive; for product photography, where nailing on the right part of the product is critical; for nature portraiture... and I could go on and on.
> 
> On the other hand, a focus ring doesn't cost much (probably close to zero percent of the selling price), and if they put it on, it's unlikely to piss very many people off. And if it does, what are they going to do about it? Every other lens for a full frame camera ever made has a manual focus ring so they're just SOL


They still need to put all the focusing hardware in and pay the design costs. So I agree that leaving off the ring will give negligible savings. With FBW they don’t even need the mechanical linkage. There is not going to be much clamor for fixed-focus lenses for FF cameras, I’ll wager. 

As a practical matter, I so rarely use the ring on the 24-105mm STM I got with the 6D2 a year ago that I wouldn’t miss it. The autofocus works great, I don’t like the FBW, and I don’t use it for the special cases that need MF. The exception was back in June when I was shooting video of basketball pick-up games, as I do each year. The first night I used AF to try that out. It worked, but I had to pay attention to what it focused on. The other nights, I just used manual focus. I just focused on the rim of one basket (being about the same distance from the other one) and left it. DOF covered the whole court. I knew that from hyperfocal tables. 

Sony lens prices surprise me. Years ago I heard the rationale for buying Sony cameras was that since they had IBIS, you would save a bunch of money on each lens you bought.


----------



## Talys (Oct 7, 2018)

mirage said:


> in reality, only a very very small percentage of potential buyers will balk and not buy "focus ring free lenses", especially when it is not a macro or other "special purpose lens". even less so, when there is a good way to directly and precisely control focus distance from camera body.



On a personal level, I disagree, because I use manual focus for some reasons on almost every focal length, with the the exception wide lenses because astro isn't really my thing, and AF on wide lenses is always dead on. However, I'll concede that there isn't any data to back up my opinion!

To the contrary, significant negative in my book is a poor MF ring; for example, the Sigma 150-600C.



mirage said:


> i bet, as soon as one maker starts selling a series of eg "super compact, native mirrorfree, f/1.8-2.8, optically decent, fully wheathersealed, focus ring-free" prime lenses at "very decent prices" they will sell well and all others will follow suit sooner or later.



Again, just my opinion, but I don't think this will happen. There could certainly be FBW lenses that are devoid of a MF ring. But I think these would almost certainly be at the lower end of the spectrum, not high end ones. And if they were made, they would serve a smaller niche, which would bump up their prices, not make them cheaper. Let's keep in mind that almost every 1.8-2.8 lens is a niche lens anyways.

I suppose history will prove one of us right


----------



## Rocky (Nov 18, 2018)

Personally, I do not like FBW. It is hard to be precise. I like the long throw focusing ring of the "old" MF lens with depth of field marking


----------

