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

[Jethro]

What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7. If you don't want it. Don't buy it. But making up all sorts of rationales as to why Canon won't do something that it appears increasingly likely that they will do, only runs the risk of making people look like fools when the camera is released.

I think you may be mistaking healthy scepticism for participants being 'personally offended'. This is a rumour site, so expressing scepticism that a particular rumour will (or will not) actually crystallise, based on a view of the likely / possible business consequences (eg the likely price) of such a crystallisation, doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

The R7 (as specced in this thread) wouldn't be for me (ie I have no skin in the game), but I'd love to see such a camera because it would add something to the RF system, potentially draw more people into the system, and provide a lot of utility to (at least some) people.

But rumours of an APS-C RF body have been around as long as ... well ... RF bodies, and I've always been sceptical about the likelihood (partly because I'm sceptical of Canon's desire to invest in yet another mount (RF-s)).

 

[lote82]

I think you may be mistaking healthy scepticism for participants being 'personally offended'. This is a rumour site, so expressing scepticism that a particular rumour will (or will not) actually crystallise, based on a view of the likely / possible business consequences (eg the likely price) of such a crystallisation, doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

The R7 (as specced in this thread) wouldn't be for me (ie I have no skin in the game), but I'd love to see such a camera because it would add something to the RF system, potentially draw more people into the system, and provide a lot of utility to (at least some) people.

But rumours of an APS-C RF body have been around as long as ... well ... RF bodies, and I've always been sceptical about the likelihood (partly because I'm sceptical of Canon's desire to invest in yet another mount (RF-s)).

Yes, but...
RF-S wouldn't be a new "mount". It's just a new lens-lineup fully compatible with RF mount.
RF-S on FF = crop mode (sensor not fully lighted)
RF on APS-C = cropped image

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

It is definitely good but it might no be necessary

 

[koenkooi]

Note that a C-RAW file from the R5 in crop mode is about 1/2.5 times the size of a full frame C-RAW file. In other words, it is an APS-c sized file and that is the feature that I was referring to in a hypothetical R5S. As far as I can tell, when the R5 is in crop mode it doesn't even read the full sensor, so no reason to believe that the readout will be significantly slower than a similar crop sensor when in that mode. [..]

Judging from the rolling shutter, the crop mode only reads the lines for the crop mode and then discards the sides, it's 1.6x faster in readout compared to the full sensor.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

Right but EF lenses can still be used on both systems.
That upgrade path still works.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why are RF lenses not backward compatible?

If APS-C RF cameras are coming you surely will use RF and RF-S on FF and APS-C RF cameras as well. I know there are only a few lenses that would make sense using on both sensor sizes, but for ex. the RF 16mm would be one of them!

I believe that was in reference to Rf lenses not being usable on the EF-M mount

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There still needs to be a replacement line for the Rebel series.

That is true from a consumer standpoint but whether or not that is still profitable enough to produce them in a shrinking market is for Canon to determine.
Nikon has publicly abandoned that market for lack of profitability.

 

[lote82]

I believe that was in reference to Rf lenses not being usable on the EF-M mount

Yes, after reading a 2nd and 3rd time, I came to the same conclusion!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

2. In a shrinking market with actual supply constraints, wouldn't it be economicaly wise to cut M (and EF) off and concentrate on RF (with FF and APS-C)?

That is a very good question.
The answer is not so straightforward.
Canon can't just force more expensive cameras on customers but at the same time if they can entice customers to buy pricier models then that would be ideal.
Focusing up market makes a lot of sense but there still needs to be an entry-level of some sort.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you? What data are you looking at, because I am not aware that Canon has published their sales and marketing data.

No, they don’t. But reasonable deductions can be made from sales data that are publicly available.

What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7.

Who is personally offended by the idea of an R7?

Should I start referring to a ‘handful of forum participants that are desperately salivating after their wet dream of a mirrorless version of the 7DIII’?

I will say, what does offend me are people who ignore facts and data, and make asinine statements that are easily refuted by those facts and data. A prime example being people who claim DSLRs or the EOS M system are ‘dead’ despite ample, readily available data that show their claim to be false and their ongoing false statements to be completely idiotic.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Right but EF lenses can still be used on both systems.
That upgrade path still works.

Yes, but the RF-S lens with an APS-C R body as a gateway to RF lenses with FF R bodies is being used as a justification for why Canon ‘needs’ to launch APS-C R bodies and lenses.

My point is that with DSLRs, Canon had partial interoperability (EF lenses on FF and APS-C bodies), and when designing their mirrorless systems they chose to completely drop interoperability.

Yet certain forum members believe that interoperability that Canon chose to drop is a driver for Canon to launch an APS-C R line with dedicated lenses.

 

[lote82]

That is a very good question.
The answer is not so straightforward.
Canon can't just force more expensive cameras on customers but at the same time if they can entice customers to buy pricier models then that would be ideal.
Focusing up market makes a lot of sense but there still needs to be an entry-level of some sort.

I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!

M is dead end because it's not having upgrade path (and long tele lenses). It's build only around small/light/cheap, which isn't enough in the long run. If I (and I think not only me) want small/light/cheap I'll take my smartphone. Having more reach to clearly separate from smartphone market needs long teles. I think everyone knows long teles will never come to a small/light/cheap mount...

If APS-C will have a place in future Canon lineup it has to offer more than only small/light/cheap and also upgrade path to FF. RF could offer this....

The only other option for Canon I can see is FF all the way down to very low end and no APS-C anymore!

Sorry, but Canon screwed M mount by not giving upgrade path!

 

[dilbert]

I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!

Maybe the R7 will be rhe 7D/II but with the price corrected to leave room for a R70, R700, and not to forget R7000.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe the R7 will be rhe 7D/II but with the price corrected to leave room for a R70, R700, and not to forget R7000.

You forgot the R77.

 

[lote82]

You forgot the R77.

Obviously a unfunny joke...
At least R77 is more likely than M7!

 

[reefroamer]

I seriously doubt there will ever be an APS-C mirrorless Rebel, much as some people here might want one. Times have changed since the first Rebel was introduced in 2003 for $899 body, $999 kit, with a 6mp sensor. The Rebel line was wildly popular, but in 2007 the first iPhone launched. And the photography market changed. Today, more than 2 billion iPhones — all with cameras — have been sold, plus all the Android smartphones. For people who want a better camera to explore more serious photography there’s the now-$899 Canon EOS RP. It’s a little long in the tooth, but still a great entry point with an easy upgrade path in the modern Canon mirrorless full-frame system. So what does Canon (and the entry level camera customer) really have to gain from cheaper mirrorless Rebel with a cropped sensor? I just seriously doubt there’s much more gold to mine in that market with any ILC.

An upmarket R7 in the $2,000-$2,500 range might make more sense, if Canon sees enough potential buyers to justify the expense of bringing it to market. I’m skeptical Canon can even make that case, though personally I’d love to see a competent R7 described by this rumor.

I live on a tourist destination island where 10 years ago it was common to see visitors lugging around Rebel-type cameras. Today, not so much. nearly everyone is snapping away with their very adequate smartphone cameras. Sure, I rarely see anyone with a serious camera-lens combo, but when I do it’s not an inexpensive Rebel-type. I just think that time has gone. We’ll see what Canon thinks. I could be wrong.

 

[reefroamer]

I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses. My biggest concern is if it will be really R7 like or rather R90 (or even entry model). Having (as already stated) upgrade path (regarding to sensor size AND/OR model specs) in one mount is crucial!

M is dead end because it's not having upgrade path (and long tele lenses). It's build only around small/light/cheap, which isn't enough in the long run. If I (and I think not only me) want small/light/cheap I'll take my smartphone. Having more reach to clearly separate from smartphone market needs long teles. I think everyone knows long teles will never come to a small/light/cheap mount...

If APS-C will have a place in future Canon lineup it has to offer more than only small/light/cheap and also upgrade path to FF. RF could offer this....

The only other option for Canon I can see is FF all the way down to very low end and no APS-C anymore!

Sorry, but Canon screwed M mount by not giving upgrade path!

I would guess that most people who buy an M camera have no need of an upgrade path. And the lack of one is not likely a serious impediment to moving upstream in the Canon R system. These are mostly inexpensive cameras that can be kept for use where size and weight are more important considerations, even as we’ve joined the R system. From what I read on this forum, many of us M users have them exactly for this reason. It is what it is, and I accept that. If it dies, I really won’t care. I’ll just keep using my M50 and the several lenses I have until they no longer work. That should be a long time. All my EF/EF-S lenses and bodies are gone to make way for mr R6 and RF lenses. But Im keeping my M50.

 

[unfocused]

I seriously doubt there will ever be an APS-C mirrorless Rebel, much as some people here might want one. Times have changed since the first Rebel was introduced in 2003 for $899 body, $999 kit, with a 6mp sensor. The Rebel line was wildly popular, but in 2007 the first iPhone launched. And the photography market changed. Today, more than 2 billion iPhones — all with cameras — have been sold, plus all the Android smartphones. For people who want a better camera to explore more serious photography there’s the now-$899 Canon EOS RP. It’s a little long in the tooth, but still a great entry point with an easy upgrade path in the modern Canon mirrorless full-frame system. So what does Canon (and the entry level camera customer) really have to gain from cheaper mirrorless Rebel with a cropped sensor? I just seriously doubt there’s much more gold to mine in that market with any ILC.

An upmarket R7 in the $2,000-$2,500 range might make more sense, if Canon sees enough potential buyers to justify the expense of bringing it to market. I’m skeptical Canon can even make that case, though personally I’d love to see a competent R7 described by this rumor.

I live on a tourist destination island where 10 years ago it was common to see visitors lugging around Rebel-type cameras. Today, not so much. nearly everyone is snapping away with their very adequate smartphone cameras. Sure, I rarely see anyone with a serious camera-lens combo, but when I do it’s not an inexpensive Rebel-type. I just think that time has gone. We’ll see what Canon thinks. I could be wrong.

Agree. From the 1960s to the 2000s there was a single dominant 35mm SLR format, which still drives today's cameras and was preceded by the 35mm rangefinders. APS-C was created for financial and technical reasons having to do with sensor development at the time. There is no good reason why consumer level cameras have to have an APS-C sensor today as the cost differences have become insignificant.

On the other hand, the APS-C format as a viable option for enthusiasts seeking to artificially extend the "reach" of their lenses is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. It makes sense for Canon to offer a high-end option for people who have the disposable income to buy an R7, and it appears from the increasing pace of the rumors and increased confidence of the site administrators that such a body is on its way. Skepticism is certainly justifiable, but at some point we may have to accept that Canon actually knows the market better than the self-appointed experts on this forum.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would guess that most people who buy an M camera have no need of an upgrade path. And the lack of one is not likely a serious impediment to moving upstream in the Canon R system.

I suspect that was Canon’s conclusion as well, since they decided to not provide an upgrade path to the RF mount. They had ample data to guide that decision.

 

[Blue Zurich]

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts an M to EF, now RF upgrade path theory, in general is a CR thing, not a Canon thing. I have never, not once felt all of a companys lines needed to blend and merge.

Any industry. Nothing wrong with distinct, stand alone product lines.

Furthermore, are any people on CR heralding the M to RF path really in that boat? A few sure but....As always, we are a small minority and the notion Canon reads this site makes me crack up. Sorry Craig.