Canon will release an APS-C RF mount camera(s) later in 2022 [CR3]

[slclick]

Is the Sigma an RF mount?

No Sigma lenses as of yet use the RF mount.

 

[scyrene]

Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.

I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.

Why say it then? Surely it was implying that they don't sell here.

As for not developing it, that's a common complaint but I think it misses the point. The M series is as developed as it needs to be for the target market. I take Canon's strategy to be, you want more specialised/esoteric glass, you go with EF or RF.

 

[slclick]

Once again, I didn’t say they are not selling, just that I have only ever seen two people using them.

I am quite sure the type of person that buys a camera from Amazon is different to those who buy from camera stores.. We also don’t know the figures. That would be interesting. It is a shame Canon have not developed the system lens wise with only 8 lenses currently available.

"I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin?

Maybe start with inserting a quote about Jon Snow here?

 

[Deleted]

"I am quite sure...." So much wrong with that statement. Seriously where do I begin?

Maybe start with inserting a quote about Jon Snow here?

Depends how you interpret it. Many here in my area are loyal to their local camera shop and love to go in, handle the kit and get advice. There is also a big group that go to their local camera store to see the kit, then buy from one of the grey import companies. I would put money on the majority of Amazon camera buyers not visiting camera shops and instead doing their research online. I am not suggesting any of these groups are wrong, just different. A lot of older togs I know visit camera stores to do trade ins on their outgoing kit, something you cannot do on Amazon.

I am only talking bug purchases here, I am sure many of us buy the small stuff next day on prime etc. I do know many wildlife togs of the older generation that still fear buying online, particularly for larger purchases even when at times it can be the safer route. A friend found that out after he bought a new camera. It went wrong two weeks in but by then the local shop had gone out of business.

 

[Deleted]

Why say it then? Surely it was implying that they don't sell here.

No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.

As for not developing it, that's a common complaint but I think it misses the point. The M series is as developed as it needs to be for the target market. I take Canon's strategy to be, you want more specialised/esoteric glass, you go with EF or RF.

Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.

 

[scyrene]

No, sometimes the meaning of a statement or sentiment doesn’t come across the right way in a short online comment. It is also very easy to read a comment with a personal bias.

Which is where an RF APS-C body comes in.

Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.

 

[bf]

APS RF makes sense for birding or sport when the glass is way heavier than the body but would not fit the gap for what the Ef-m cameras or Fuji-X are offering. I hope Canon is smarter than that! If I go to RF mount, I'd go for a full-frame camera like R5, not an APSC body.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is the Sigma an RF mount?

EF.
Sigma has no RF lenses at the moment

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Fair enough. As for RF APS-C, I still find it a bit of an odd proposition, but I am not a business analyst.

RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.

 

[scyrene]

RF 100-400, RF 100-500L, RF 600 f/11 and RF 800 f/11 are all begging for an APS-C sensor.

Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.

R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of money

 

[AlanF]

R7 = R5 + 1.4 Extender - a lot of money

R5 + 1.4x Extender is equivalent to 35 Mpx APS-C in terms of resolution and field of view, but with the diffraction limits of 45 Mpx FF or 17 Mpx APS-C.
R6 + 1.4x Extender is equivalent to 15 Mpx APS-C = much less money.

Funny, I'd say the last two are evidence against it.

You are right in that an f/11 lens matches up better with a low density sensor like that on the R6 because of diffraction limits. I find that it's not worth putting the RF 1.4x on the RF 100-400mm f/8 when it's on the R5, but it is on the R6 for additional reach. With a true 35 MPx APS-C, you would need an f/4 lens or wider to start taking full advantage of its resolution (as is noticeable on the 90D or M6 II).

 

[researcher]

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?
A full frame that can crop in the view finder would be more flexible. An R7 would have to be quite robust (to match a 7D ruggedness).
I wonder would they make it more computational like an Olympus. It could I suppose have a good frame rate.
I hope the sensor is better than the 7DII (a sensor I was never happy with).

I was wondering the same thing. If the current FF R-series can auto-crop to an EF-S lens, then I'm not sure how significant the production savings are in making a new APSC sensor - unless they just cripple the existing sensor to be full-time APSC.

That said, I'm a casual Rebel shooter and I have a few EF-S lenses I've spent money on so I don't shoot enough to warrant the expense of FF. If they come out with a decent R-series APSC that meets the Rebel-series price point, and it retains the core R-series features (IBIS, wifi/bt, screen & EVF, eye-AF etc.) then I'm interested. If Canon wants to hit it out of the park, they should maybe see if a smaller R7 sensor can do global shutter - that would make it a must-have.

The Rebel APSC series is still Canon's biggest seller. I think the casual wannabe market still has good revenue potential if you bring out a decent product that lets people use their existing gear. Smart phones are great but I think enough people want something with more potential, but not too costly, to make it worth a go. My 2 cents...

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I use an R6 quite heavily for my professional work and now have 5 RF lenses. The only DSLR I've retained is my trusty Rebel-class 77D that I use as a travel camera. I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.

 

[Sporgon]

I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.

Have you tried the M system ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'd love to see a mirrorless Rebel.

I’d second Sporgon’s comment on the M system. For short trips where I’m packing light (carryon luggage only), I bring the M6, M11-22, M18-150 and a little Gorillapod. It’s a really small and light kit that delivers very good images.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Some of us are also skeptical of folks without access to that data who assume there was no 7D Mark III due to poor sales of the 7D Mark II, to the exclusion of any other possibility.

It might have been because the data revealed that high sales of the 7D Mark II didn't produce as much in profits as the lost sales of the 1D X (prior to 2016) and the 1D X Mark II (2016 and after) would have produced had the 7D Mark II not existed.

There's also a third possibility: That Canon was planning on releasing a 7D Mark III in 2018-19 but due to market conditions by 2016 or so (e.g. Sony's FF MILCs accelerating sales affecting Canon's FF DSLR sales) they decided instead to devote more resources to getting the EOS R system rolling and the 7D Mark III was one of the projects that fell by the wayside to free up those resources.

 

[Michael Clark]

I believe the 7D Mk III wasn't made because there was a lack of customers and interested people waiting for it. imho the end of the 7D II life-cycle just coincided with the release of the RF mount. The 7D II came out in 2014 and considering a normal 4-year cycle it should've ended in 2018 with a new 7d III. The release of the RF mount, as we now know, was actually the death of of EF mount and their cameras.

So, my point is: just because the 7D III was never released, it doesn't necessarily state that there wasn't a market for it or that there isn't a market for an R7.

In retrospective: imho Canon should have released a 7d III in 2017 or early 2018. It would have had enough time to sell and given Canon the appropriate time to develop a scheme for R-ASPC strategy while having satisfied customers.

In my opinion it was more the case of Canon deciding to devote more resources to getting the EOS R system launched and the 7D mark III was one of the projects that fell by the wayside in order to accelerate the EOS R system.

 

[Michael Clark]

Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?

That argument sounds a lot like many I heard back around 2012 about why Canon shouldn't worry about competing with Sony's FF MILCs when DSLRs were so much better. We all knew EVFs weren't near as good as OVFs. MILC battery life was a joke. PDAF speed was so superior to CDAF speed. Etc.

The incentive for Canon is that market demand is shifting to mirrorless with or without Canon having products in that segment. They're not going to be caught near as flat-footed this time as they were a half decade ago when the shift to FF MILCs accelerated far beyond their own predictions and expectations.

Canon also seems to astutely recognize that, unlike circa 2003-2015, dominating the lower end digital ILC market (e.g. sub $500 kits) in the years to come will no longer produce the lion's share of profits for anyone. That part of the total ILC market continues to shrink as many folks no longer feel the need for an ILC at all, especially if they can't instantly apply a filter to the photo they just took and post it to social media when using a cheap ILC.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The incentive for Canon is that market demand is shifting to mirrorless with or without Canon having products in that segment. They're not going to be caught near as flat-footed this time as they were a half decade ago when the shift to FF MILCs accelerated far beyond their own predictions and expectations.

Except that isn't true. Here are the production figures for DSLRs and MILCs for the past decade. The shift to MILCs is not 'accelerating'. MILC shipments have been flat basically since CIPA started tracking the segment. DSLRs are definitely in decline, but MILCs are not gaining as a result (thanks to Kayaker72 on TDP for the plot).