Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?

[Otara]

One of us is posting data and facts. The other is posting opinions that are directly contradicted by those data and facts. The old expression about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent applies here.

I guess for me its about getting combative over someone being wrong about a Star Wars fact, vs an assertion about curing cancer with crystals.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

 

[lote82]

Thanks, that's a perfect example of how you continue doubling down on false information, and make yourself look ever more foolish and asinine in the process.

I stated that the M6 II and 90D are part of market segments that sell very well for Canon, namely APS-C MILCs and DSLRs. Last week in Japan, the three best-selling ILC kits comprised the EOS M2 APS-C MILC (in two colors) and the Kiss X10 (250D/SL3) DSLR.

View attachment 203309

DSLRs comprise >40% of the ILC market. For example, 44% of ILCs shipped globally in March (the most recent month's CIPA data) were DSLRs. Canon dominates that market segment. Therefore, simple logic shows that Canon DSLRs are selling very well.

If you have reputable data that show otherwise, feel free to share them. Unless you do, by contradicting easily verifiable, publicly available data you merely make yourself look like an idiot.

I don't care about your screenshots of unknown sources. Maybe M50 is still selling well (in Japan). You don't know the margin of these cameras therefore you don't really know if it's a sellout or really profitable for Canon. Oh wait ... YOU surely know!

 

[lote82]

Clearly you need to read my statements more carefully. Obviously people have a reason to want whatever it is they want. However, what some people want is not consistent with reality. You may want a 500/2.8 lens that weighs 2 kg and costs $1000. Expressing a desire for something ridiculous like that is going to engender ridicule.

There are good reasons for people to want a high-end APS-C EOS R, and good reasons for people to want a low-end APS-C EOS R. There are also good reasons grounded in logic that Canon may not make one. Certainly there were good reasons to want a 7DIII, right? You did. So did many members here on CR. But Canon didn't deliver one, did they? So clearly, there were good reasons for Canon not to make one.

I don't believe there will be a high-end APS-C R body or even a low-end one. Certainly, I could be wrong. Time will tell, and if I am wrong, I'll be happy for those who want one of those options and are able to obtain it.

The problem you really have is that you're making patently false statements, and it seems you take offense when corrected and instead choose to double down on disseminating misinformation.

So ... do we have a deal?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't care about your screenshots of unknown sources.

It’s BCN data, as referenced in an earlier reply. And CIPA.

But yes, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t care about facts. This is becoming analogous to a debate between a scientist and a QAnon adherent, and equally pointless. Have fun living in your personal alternate reality. I’m out.

 

[lote82]

It’s BCN data, as referenced in an earlier reply. And CIPA.

But yes, it’s abundantly clear that you don’t care about facts. This is becoming analogous to a debate between a scientist and a QAnon adherent, and equally pointless. Have fun living in your personal alternate reality. I’m out.

With all these "facts" you can't be wrong predicting the future ... so, again ... do we have a deal?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, I'll take one of those please!

Physics be damned!

 

[Dragon]

Wasn't the last rumour (quite long ago) of M about vlogging? Could fit quite nicely to small/light and give it new life.

As long as people are claiming that there is no need for something like R7 I will show very much pleasure from seeing M killed off!
Sorry for being an ass ... but the truth is:
M doesn't fit my needs, so I don't care about it ... that's all!

You are comical. First you slam Neuroanatomist for being arrogant and then promptly make a statement like this. Yes, you do look remarkably like an ass .

 

[lote82]

You are comical. First you slam Neuroanatomist for being arrogant and then promptly make a statement like this. Yes, you do look remarkably like an ass .

Yes, I am. Never said I am not!
Just read exactly what I wrote. You didn't get the message...
I don't "hate" M or any other system, I just don't care about it (because it doesn't fit my needs). I don't say there will never be an M camera again. When I said it's dead I BELIEVE there will never be an M camera (at least as we know it) again. MAYBE the new purpose COULD be for vlogging (which I don't care)...

The difference between an arrogant ass like me and an arrogant soziopath like Neuroanatomist:
I don't go to M threads bullying people by saying this won't ever happen!

Let's go back to Topic (which is not M):
I made a fair proposal some posts ago...
Everyone is invited to make agreement with me.

 

[scyrene]

it would be important to Canon that this new line provide and encourage an upgrade path to the R mount. This is what the M mount lacks.

This is predicated on there being enough current M users who'd like to transition to RF but who aren't doing so because of the lack of backwards compatibility to offset to costs of adding a new line. It's been a common assumption on this forum that such a group is important, but I've never seen any compelling evidence. I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…my entire EF-M gear set lives in a small bag.

The M kit is very convenient. At home, I keep my gear in Pelican/Storm cases, and the full kit (M6, all 8 EF-M lenses and a 270EX II flash) fit in a Storm im2200 case.



It’s small enough that on some family trips, I take the M6 and a few lenses (M11-22, M18-150, and M22/2) in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20 along with a FF kit. I use the M during the day, and the FF kit for solo outings at blue hour or later.

 

[lote82]

If you have reputable data that show otherwise, feel free to share them. Unless you do, by contradicting easily verifiable, publicly available data you merely make yourself look like an idiot.

Selling M50 kits to beginners (in Japan) who will probably never buy anything else for the M system, isn't a proof for the healthyness of the M system!
It's also not a proof that Canon is making good profit (globaly) with the whole system (which is not only M50 kits in Japan)!
It's also not a proof that Canon won't bring APS-C cameras and lenses to the RF system.

It only indicates that Japanese like M50 kits ... nothing else!

Zero (current) rumors about M indicate that the system is dying.
No new cameras (sorry, the M50 II is NOT a new camera hardwarewise) and lenses since ... years (I don't know, because I don't care) ... indicate that the system is dying.
Canon didn't mentioning M in their financial documents indicate that they aren't interested in the system anymore.

You hijacked the thread again ... let's go back to RF!

If you are right while stating that there won't be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) you can call me fool or make as much jokes as you want of me.
If I am right while stating that there will be an official announcement till the end of this year for an RF APS-C camera (which is at least as highend as M6 II or 90D) I can call you fool or make as much jokes as I want of you.

Deal?

If I am an idiot then you are a cowardly idiot because you don't accept the bet!

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is predicated on there being enough current M users who'd like to transition to RF but who aren't doing so because of the lack of backwards compatibility to offset to costs of adding a new line. It's been a common assumption on this forum that such a group is important, but I've never seen any compelling evidence. I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.

Exactly. Canon has the data on users’ upgrade path from APS-C to FF, and they chose to make RF lenses incompatible with M bodies. To me, that’s evidence that the ‘upgrade path’ is not necessary (probably because as you suggest, APS-C users who buy a FF body mostly start buying FF lenses at that point, and buy no more crop bodies or lenses after going FF).

However, consider that >40% of the ILC market is DSLRs, and most of those being sold at this point are entry-level. It’s possible Canon wants to entice those people that the next camera they buy should be mirrorless, and an APS-C R may be the way. But it would have to be cheap…

 

[hachu21]

If Canon was going to make one and only one APS-C RF lens, I would vote for a wideangle zoom. I imagine with the shorter flange distance on RF mount, it would be possible to make something a bit wider than EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18, without sacrificing optical performance and without increasing size/weight compared to EF-S 10-22 w/adapter. A 9-20mm or maybe even an 8(.5)-18mm?

Like... Ef-m 11-22? Or a bit wider.

 

[neuroanatomist]

that would be the most boring kit-lens ever made, and I don't imagine it would have much appeal to R7 users.

It would make sense for a low-cost R7 in that it would probably be very cheap, making for a very cheap kit.

If Canon was going to make one and only one APS-C RF lens, I would vote for a wideangle zoom. I imagine with the shorter flange distance on RF mount, it would be possible to make something a bit wider than EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 10-18, without sacrificing optical performance and without increasing size/weight compared to EF-S 10-22 w/adapter. A 9-20mm or maybe even an 8(.5)-18mm?

Especially with the larger throat diameter (compared to EF-M), yes.

But the market for it would need to be there. Recall that Canon started with the EF-S 10-22mm, then ‘upgraded’ it to the EF-S 10-18, with a plastic mount and narrower aperture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Like... Ef-m 11-22? Or a bit wider.

Yes, but it would be substantially larger.

 

[John Wilde]

I'd expect most M users aren't interested in 'upgrade paths', and of those who are, maybe most eventually bite the bullet anyway.

Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.

 

[lote82]

Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.

So...
Is it rather bad or good having an up- and downgrade path in one mount (like Sony and Nikon!)?

 

[John Wilde]

So...
Is it rather bad or good having an up- and downgrade path in one mount (like Sony and Nikon!)?

I'm too lazy to look up Sony, but it's a bad thing that Nikon doesn't have a Z in the same price range as the M50. With kit lens, the Nikon Z 50 is $300 more.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Back in the DSLR Era, EF-S lenses couldn't be used on FF DSLRs. Now, EF-M lenses can't be used on FF mirrorless. Same thing. It's a safe bet that your typical Rebel/M50 buyer has no interest in ever buying an FF camera in the future.

The difference here is that RF lenses aren’t backward compatible, whereas EF lenses worked on APS-C DSLRs.

I wonder how many upgraders (APS-C to FF) there actually are today. A decade ago, there was a massive IQ gulf between cell phone cameras and even an APS-C DSLR. Now we have smartphones that are like ILCs (e.g., three cameras with different prime lenses in one device), that deliver very good images.

I suspect that today there are far more first time ILC buyers getting FF bodies than a few years ago. Especially with bodies like the RP that aren’t far off a high-end smartphone. A sub-$800 full frame R body with a kit lens would come in cheaper than a top-line iPhone.

 

[lote82]

I'm too lazy to look up Sony, but it's a bad thing that Nikon doesn't have a Z in the same price range as the M50. With kit lens, the Nikon Z 50 is $300 more.

That wasn't my question, but anyway...
For me it's better to have up- and downgrade path in one mount, for you it's not, that's fair!
Isn't $300 more for Z50 fair because it's better speced than the M50? (No intentions, just curious!)