Don't do it. Go full frame. The 7D taught me digital photography, the 6D let me know when I was getting better. Love the R but am really looking forward to R5.
Upvote
0
An R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the RP, R, or the R6. I wouldn't expect it to be.so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible
so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible
I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.
18-45mm is by all indications a full frame lens. Canon made a 17-40mm in the past for full frame.Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents).
that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.
Yes, I know that the M50 is the best selling camera in Japan. Canon may want to market to a different segment; after all, they do use different names for different markets. But my point is that an APS-C RF camera doesn't have to be costly.still not nowhere as small as the EOS-M
I mean I know there's tunnel vision here but in certain markets of the world - small cameras sell better than bigger ones.
your suggestion is completely DOA in those markets.
I do agree I can't imagine this killing the EOS-M series, but your comment did make me very curious about what it would look like if Canon just simply remade similar designs to the EF-M lenses in an RF-S format. I know the RF mount is bigger, but would be curious to know how small would be possible.
I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.
I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.
The R5 is a compelling option for me to replace both my 5DIV AND my 7Dii, because the R5 is now faster, has incredible autofocus, and almost has the same pixel density of the 7DMarkii. Equivalent crop section of R5 is 17.58Mpix. Think that’s a coincidence that they made it just under the 20.1 mpix of the 7Dii? Like, they couldn’t push the R5 to 50Mpix, so it would have same density. Also just under the pixel count of the 5DSR as well.
I think there is a market for the R7, but it would need to have at least the 32Mpix sensor to be a huge step up in pixel density for birders. And it needs the ergonomics to handle big whites. And hell, maybe they will make some RF-S lenses at some point to sell more options to those that go down that path.
But I think the market will still exist for all 3 segments.
my 2 cents
A whole lot of people want small and cheap (below 1000$ for a body) for their APS-C system, hence the great success for all the M cameras out there. They wouldn't never by an expensive RF-S mount APS-C which will be in or near R6 territory pricewise.With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.
With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.
If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.
Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?
that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.