I don't think that applies to everyone who posts here.Fortunately we live in this universe.
When there's an RF-mount body + kit lens that lists for $550, that question will actually make sense.What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?
What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?
The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?
I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.
Sad for you. There’s a Best Buy (nationwide big box electronics retailer, computers, dishwashers, etc.) 3 km from my house that has the R, R5, R6, 5DIV, M-series and Rebel/xxxD, and many Canon lenses including L-series in stock. They have display counters a few meters long for each of Csnon, Nikon and Sony (with a small area of Panasonic and Fuji).
There are >20 Best Buy stores in my state, I’ve been in 3-4 of them and all have a dedicated camera section. There is also a camera store chain around here (Hunts Photo), and a few independent camera shops as well (there were more of those a few years ago).
>40% of the world is still DSLRs. Actually, it's more than that since 40% is the fraction of ILCs produced this year that were DSLRs. The installed base of DSLRs is still much higher, because it was only 2 years ago that MILCs overtook DSLRs in camera production.The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.
Ahhh yes, "loads of nature photographers". How many is 'loads'? Do you know? I don't. But I can guarantee you that Canon has a much better sense of that than either of us. The 7-series was on a 5-year cycle anyway, the longest of any Canon series (even the 1-series are on a 4-year cycle, and the xxD and xxxD models were much shorter). If there were "loads of nature photographers" buying high-end APS-C cameras, why did the 7-series languish?I’m only going off of what I know, and that’s that loads of nature photographers want an R7 (and a 500mm f5.6)…
Well, I don't camp out in the store and keep a tally. But there are cameras and lenses they have in stock, then they are sold out of them. Then they get more in. From that, I conclude that yes, people are actually buying.Are people actually buying? I personally can't think of any non photographer who would buy a standalone camera today. Maybe during the lockdown some bought cameras for the kids in place of a web camera. But virtually everybody uses their phone instead of a camera.
The shop I mentioned might be twice the size of a best buy.
Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.>40% of the world is still DSLRs. Actually, it's more than that since 40% is the fraction of ILCs produced this year that were DSLRs. The installed base of DSLRs is still much higher, because it was only 2 years ago that MILCs overtook DSLRs in camera production.
Ahhh yes, "loads of nature photographers". How many is 'loads'? Do you know? I don't. But I can guarantee you that Canon has a much better sense of that than either of us. The 7-series was on a 5-year cycle anyway, the longest of any Canon series (even the 1-series are on a 4-year cycle, and the xxD and xxxD models were much shorter). If there were "loads of nature photographers" buying high-end APS-C cameras, why did the 7-series languish?
I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.The 7D3 never came out because the world changed to mirrorless.
I’m only going off of what I know, and that’s that loads of nature photographers want an R7 (and a 500mm f5.6)…
I’d love to have a go of the 100-500! Haven’t used one yet. I can certainly see your reasoning. Just think that having that 5.6 over 7.1 at the long end would be advantageous. Maybe not a lot, but it’d definitely help smooth those backgrounds out a bit! The problem with a 500 f4 is the price!! A 500 f5.6 for around £2500 is the dream for me!I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.
That's the RP except for the sensor. That large RF mount drives body size, and will prevent an M50 size camera with an RF mount. The only way to get much smaller in an RF mount camera is to eliminate the EVF.Canon really needs to lead with an APS-C R camera that lands somewhere around the specs and size of the M50.
You say it's dying of neglect. Canon sees that of the top 10 best-selling ILCs domestically last month, four of them are EOS M kits (at #3, 5, 7 and 10).Let's face it. Canon has never shown the M line much love, and it's dying of neglect right now.
I'll be pleased if that happens, but not surprised if it doesn't. It's amusing that when someone doesn't like facts that are posted, it becomes an 'argument'.Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.
Hi- I would tend to agree with you that an R7 is the way forward for a lot of people. I have read all 8 pages of comments and its like a childs playground, full of he said,she said snipes at differing opinions. In truth there will be a market for an APS-C R based camera for a couple of simple practical reasons. Firstly, a lot of us like the format as we get a bit more reach from the magnification that APS-C provides and secondly the fact that many people have invested heavily in EF lenses over the years based around the APS-C camera ( and I dont mean EF-S lenses) for their professional needs such as wildlife and sports photography. The extra reach you get from APS-C is worth it in these cases. We are not all able just to shift all our kit over to RF based stuff !!!!Don’t know why you are so desperate for an argument. I’ll message you in 12 months once the R7 is out.
The cheapest Canon APS-C camera is under $400 lens included.I wonder what's the point any more. What % difference of the total cost of the camera would an APS-C sensor versus a Full Frame camera?
Are Fuji and Panasonic in a different segment?because sustaining two mounts doesn't work out well in the segment Canon/Nikon/Sony are in
So what?Because M mount never had a full system of native lenses, and probably never will.
Precisely. Which is why I commented that there is no reason why the M and RF systems can't co-exist.So what?
It sells very well without that.