There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera

[PerKr]

EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...

 

[dilbert]

But it seems quite likely that in the mirrorless realm, Canon will have M for crop and R for FF. And if they continue to sell well, there will be no reason to change.

There's a formfactor associated with M that the RF can't address. M isn't as small as the 4/3rds cameras but it has been more affordable. Canon fixed M being too affordable when they took the M6 up market with the M6 Mark II. Popular segment so try and extract more money from it? Find out where the price point really is for people spending on cameras in that market segment?

As an indication of just how small the M6 is, the M6 is 339cm3 & M6-II is 412cm3. The RP is 791cm3 & R6 is 1190cm3. What that means is that the RP is twice the volume of the M6 & R6 is 3 times the volume of an M6.

 

[David - Sydney]

Given the ratio of 1:1.4 bodies to lenses, and the fact that two-lens kits are very popular, it's likely that the segment of users who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies is pretty small. I am guessing about that, but Canon has ample data to size that market with good accuracy..... They have tons of historical data on APS-C users and FF users and which bodies and lenses they bought, in which order...

7D buyers may have only bought EF lenses but xxD/xxxD/xxxxD buyers probably not. I am not necessarily typical but started with 7D + EF24-105mm. Second lens was EF-s 10-22mm which I used extensively. 3rd lens was EF70-200mm/2.8ii as I was sold on the idea that buy the best glass and not need to replace it. A little GAS since then

For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on. CPS users would give some idea but Canon applies CPS in different ways in different countries. You need a business registration and derive most of your revenue from photography before paying for CPS in Australia for instance. Enthusiast buyers in Australia are excluded even if they meet the minimum body/lens ownership requirements.
Resellers may know what you have bought in the past but that doesn't cover purchases from different resellers or buy/sell on second hand markets. Resellers may not provide that level of detailed customer data to Canon either.

 

[David - Sydney]

Why do you think macro photography is better when using a smaller sensor?

The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.

 

[David - Sydney]

There's a formfactor associated with M that the RF can't address. M isn't as small as the 4/3rds cameras but it has been more affordable. Canon fixed M being too affordable when they took the M6 up market with the M6 Mark II. Popular segment so try and extract more money from it? Find out where the price point really is for people spending on cameras in that market segment?

As an indication of just how small the M6 is, the M6 is 339cm3 & M6-II is 412cm3. The RP is 791cm3 & R6 is 1190cm3. What that means is that the RP is twice the volume of the M6 & R6 is 3 times the volume of an M6.

The M mount is narrower than the RF mount but otherwise I don't see an issue with body size. The Sigma fp is an excellent example of full frame but very compact body at only 357cm3 (112.6 x 69.9 x 45.3 mm) ie smaller than M6ii and basically comparable to M6.

 

[David - Sydney]

The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.

Why is RF mount too big? Having a smaller sensor within a larger mount is no impediment. Canon has no need to replicate EF lenses into a native M mount.

The M6ii is 32mp@14fps and you can adapt EF lenses on it. What else do you need (not want)?

You are correct that none of us "see market research"! We can only apply reasonable logic based on our knowledge and experiences.

Those arguing that a new APS-C sensor/body doesn't make sense is based on options that currently exist either in M or R mount + RF lenses or + EF lenses. Those saying that R6/R5 + RF800mm is not enough reach are only really limited by the minimum focus distance but then don't want to buy the RF100-500mm lens or reuse their adapted EF100-400 that they already have.

 

[Rocky]

Me too, I bought my 20D with 17-40 L and 28-135 (used) and hope to up grade to FF later. After lugging both lenses with a 20D and a 40D body in the bag with with a big Canon flash etc to all contenents. I had it with the weight of the bag, So I have never upgraded to FF duer to extra weight. Then The M comes along, I switched to the M M2, and M50. Now my bag is about less than half of what it used to be. I have never look bck to the APSC DSLR.

 

[privatebydesign]

The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.

But that thinking is flawed.

First, macro imaging is often done by magnification ratio, a crop sensor can’t cover the subject size at the same reproduction ratio.

Second, as my testing illustrated, on a crop camera at macro distances a 100 macro doesn’t become close to a 160 or give you the working distance close to 1.6 times the working distance of a ff, nor does it provide that mythical 1.6 times depth of field. Besides that still negates the magnification ratio! https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...amera-next-year-cr2.40261/page-21#post-888260

 

[neuroanatomist]

For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on.

Perhaps you have never registered a Canon product, but a reasonable fraction of buyers probably do – enough that I'd be shocked if it wasn't a statistically robust sampling of their user base.

Some time back, every time you registered a product online there was a form that included tick boxes for the number and types of bodies and lenses you owned, and the number and types you planned to purchase in the next year. More recently, to register a product they require you to set up an account, and all your registered products are listed and tracked. Even if you send in the paper card that comes in the box, they can database that information and track who buys what and when.

So I'd say they have copious and excellent data on who owns what, what lenses are used on what bodies, etc.

 

[David - Sydney]

Perhaps you have never registered a Canon product, but a reasonable fraction of buyers probably do – enough that I'd be shocked if it wasn't a statistically robust sampling of their user base.

Some time back, every time you registered a product online there was a form that included tick boxes for the number and types of bodies and lenses you owned, and the number and types you planned to purchase in the next year. More recently, to register a product they require you to set up an account, and all your registered products are listed and tracked. Even if you send in the paper card that comes in the box, they can database that information and track who buys what and when.

So I'd say they have copious and excellent data on who owns what, what lenses are used on what bodies, etc.

I had forgotten about "registration cards". I throw them all out as shameless personal data collection with no benefit to the consumer

Registration card completion rates may depend on markets where the warranty is dependent on registration or not.
"Australian Consumer Law provides automatic guarantees to consumers that apply regardless of the warranties you give or sell to consumers.
A business’ warranty can’t override the consumer guarantees. For example, if a product suffers a failure outside a warranty period, it may still be covered by consumer guarantees.
If you’re a supplier or manufacturer and provide such a warranty, under the ACL you must comply with that warranty. If you fail to comply with a warranty, consumers have rights against you under the consumer guarantees"
https://business.gov.au/products-and-services/fair-trading/australian-consumer-law

Registration card completion have no impact as long as you have the proof of purchase. You have the right to claim warranty from the point of sale where you bought it or direct to the OEM at your choice. Even Apple had to change to 2 year warranty in Australia as the majority of telco iPhone contracts were for 2 years.

What we don't have are "anti-lemon refunds" laws unfortunately or receipts that use fade resistant ink!

 

[Chig]

I suggest to Canon that they develop a new cropped BSI stacked sensor of about 30-40mp and use it for 3 cameras :

• An all out pro level crop camera based closely on the R3 which would be the ultimate birding / wildlife camera and price it about the same as the normal R3
• A more affordable camera based closely on the R6 which would be extremely capable for birding etc. and price it about the same as the normal R6
• A compact flagship M mount camera based on the M6 mark ii but updated to be similar to the R6 in features .

I would definitely buy the crop version of the R6 but would save up to buy the crop R3 eventually.

I suspect the R6 based camera would sell very well and the R3 based one would be reasonably popular and a showcase for what Canon can do.

The M mount camera would be very popular with those who love the tiny form factor of these bodies but would like the latest tech.

 

[Nick L]

Nothing against APC sensors or Cameras (I have had a few), but originally they existed as full frame sensors were expensive and hard to make, but having a full frame sensor and a crop mode fixes most of the worries for me. In the next few years will Canon still want to support a lot of different product lines when the trend of sales is downward, maybe a cheaper fullframe with a crop mode will be the way?

 

[-pekr-]

I suggest to Canon that they develop a new cropped BSI stacked sensor of about 30-40mp and use it for 3 cameras :

• An all out pro level crop camera based closely on the R3 which would be the ultimate birding / wildlife camera and price it about the same as the normal R3
• A more affordable camera based closely on the R6 which would be extremely capable for birding etc. and price it about the same as the normal R6
• A compact flagship M mount camera based on the M6 mark ii but updated to be similar to the R6 in features .

I would definitely buy the crop version of the R6 but would save up to buy the crop R3 eventually.

I suspect the R6 based camera would sell very well and the R3 based one would be reasonably popular and a showcase for what Canon can do.

The M mount camera would be very popular with those who love the tiny form factor of these bodies but would like the latest tech.

I would probably never buy a higher end M camera, without the possibility to eventually use it with our RF lens. We got rid of all of our EF lens lately, so for us, the option to invest into an EF lens again (if there would be some practical need for that), is mostly non existent.

I am a big fan of M6II format. If Canon brings in something like that in the EOS-R form (as small as possible), I would buy one. Something like a Nikon Z fc.

 

[dilbert]

Why is RF mount too big? Having a smaller sensor within a larger mount is no impediment. Canon has no need to replicate EF lenses into a native M mount.

Might I suggest that until you've got personal experience with owning a M-series camera with some of the smaller lenses (such as the 11-22 or 15-45), alongside a FF camera with 16-35/24-70, that you just stop asking questions like this?

And rather than tell people about larger mounts, maybe listen to them why they prefer the smaller form factors.

For those that own the M series, the benefits of the M are abuntantly clear. Everything about the camera system is smaller and in a good way. Maybe that's not for everyone but for a large number of people, it works.

 

[koenkooi]

The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.

The purple coneflowers in my garden have come out and are attracting butterflies, bumblebees, honey bees and damselflies use them as a perch. For some butterflies I can get close enough that their wings start tapping the lens hood, the working distance of the RF100mm at 1.4x is like an inch from the lens hood. But most of the time can't get close enough and switch to the 180L, which has really slow AF and no IS. In the afternoon when all the bugs have warmed up are get really skittish I use the RF100-500. It's only 0.33x, but the AF and IS are great.

Last year I would've used the M6II + EF100mm or Sigma 150mm for that situation where I need more 'reach' than the 100mm on FF, but also need AF, IS and better than 0.33x magnification.

 

[AlanF]

The purple coneflowers in my garden have come out and are attracting butterflies, bumblebees, honey bees and damselflies use them as a perch. For some butterflies I can get close enough that their wings start tapping the lens hood, the working distance of the RF100mm at 1.4x is like an inch from the lens hood. But most of the time can't get close enough and switch to the 180L, which has really slow AF and no IS. In the afternoon when all the bugs have warmed up are get really skittish I use the RF100-500. It's only 0.33x, but the AF and IS are great.

Last year I would've used the M6II + EF100mm or Sigma 150mm for that situation where I need more 'reach' than the 100mm on FF, but also need AF, IS and better than 0.33x magnification.

Slap the RF 2x on the 100-500mm and get 0.66x, which as you know I like doing. However, in terms of additional detail at the finest level, it's roughly only 50% more because of diffraction.

 

[David - Sydney]

Might I suggest that until you've got personal experience with owning a M-series camera with some of the smaller lenses (such as the 11-22 or 15-45), alongside a FF camera with 16-35/24-70, that you just stop asking questions like this?

And rather than tell people about larger mounts, maybe listen to them why they prefer the smaller form factors.

For those that own the M series, the benefits of the M are abuntantly clear. Everything about the camera system is smaller and in a good way. Maybe that's not for everyone but for a large number of people, it works.

I have no issue with the M system or form factor and believe that is perfect for the low cost/small market segment. Some users seem to want higher end bodies though and better quality lenses which seems to be against the M philosophy.

How small a RF mount body can be is an interesting question and the Sigma fp shows how it could be done and perhaps meet the $800 RF body rumour.
Clearly there are no small/cheap RF lenses at the moment but they will need to be released at some time. They will be always be bigger than EF-m lenses though irrespective for the same focal length.

The question of how or if an APS-C sensor is deployed within RF mount is the question that is being debated.

 

[koenkooi]

Slap the RF 2x on the 100-500mm and get 0.66x, which as you know I like doing. However, in terms of additional detail at the finest level, it's roughly only 50% more because of diffraction.

The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.

I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!

 

[AlanF]

The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.

I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!

Unusually for me, I bought the RF 2x on the gray market as it's so expensive for what it is, has no moving parts to go wrong and there should be little copy variation. Looking forward to your underwater shots!

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.

What kind of market research do you see? Are you a photography industry analyst? (I’d be looking for a new sector if I were you!) Or do you work in strategic marketing for one of the camera companies?