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

[Dragon]

So... You wrote here for "nothing"?
Sounds like sadly waste of time!
Maybe you should find a hobby... I find photographing quite relaxing!

You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.

 

[Martin K]

You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.

Or not, as the case may be

 

[lote82]

You really need to read ALL of a comment. I didn't say it indicated nothing. I said it STRONGLY indicated nothing, which is to say it might mildly indicate something.

I think this is exactly what newer generations would call "CRINGE"!

 

[entoman]

Even if Canon decides not to build RF-S lenses, maybe some other manufacturer will!

That's a big "maybe"...

Canon are not licensing RF mount to third parties, so independents have to reverse-engineer.

AFAIK, at the moment the only non-Canon lenses in RF mount are the 14mm and 85mm Samyang/Rokinon models, and the (excellent) totally manual Laowa lenses. However,
Sigma are reckoned to be working on RF mount designs, and Tamron will probably follow soon afterwards, so a few independent RF lenses should start to appear in 2023.
But most if not all of these will likely be full frame lenses, as that will maximise sales.

Adapted EF-S lenses should work fine on an imaginary "R7" body, but they'll be optically inferior (but still absolutely fine) to RF equivalents, and will not be able to take advantage of combined IBIS/OIS stabilisation. Also, DSLR lenses tend to autofocus slightly slower than RF versions, which may be relevant IF the imaginary "R7" was to be a serious wildlife/sports tool.

 

[Dragon]

I think this is exactly what newer generations would call "CRINGE"!

Sadly, you still haven't figured out that the joke was on you .

 

[lote82]

216 comments spread over little more that a dozen commenters strongly indicates --- nothing! (with due credit to Shakespeare).

Listen...
When I make fun of people pretending their chosen data and facts can proof anything, I don't think about you! When I said, you "indeed have some good arguments" I meant it. When I said "Thank you!" I meant it. I know you are also talking about facts and data, but you do it in a humble way. And most important, you can differenciate between facts and opinions! I really respect you and the explanations (which really made sense!) you made even if some of the conclusions you made don't represent mine!
Defending a friend(?) shows good character. But this is not your fight. Anyway... I will stop bullying (at least till announcement of APS-C camera!)

 

[entoman]

I think the big long-term question is "Will Canon allow DSLRs and/or M to slowly wither away by not continuing to develop new models of them?

It would make poor economic sense to let crop DSLRs wither away, until such time that Canon have successfully marketed MILCs that undercut them on price.

APS-C
Currently, in the UK, the cheapest M series Canon MILC is the M50 Mkii which costs £534 body only.
The cheapest APS-C DSLR is the 2000D, which costs £409 body only.

Potential purchasers are also likely to compare the cost and availability of lenses. There are far more lenses available in EF mount (Canon and third party), and almost all of them are considerably cheaper than the 26 Canon RF lenses.

 

[unfocused]

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.

It might be better to say that DSLRs and the EOS M system are not dead yet. I don't think one should ignore and totally discount that Canon does not seem to be making much of an investment in either system. Certainly the annual releases of multiple new Rebels has slipped and although I don't follow the M system, it doesn't seem as though Canon has been putting a lot of effort into introducing new models. It is perfectly logical for people to look at those facts and data and surmise that the future of both the M system and DSLRs might not be particularly bright. Obviously you disagree. But you need to recognize that others can apply logic and reasoning and come to a different conclusion without being "asinine."

 

[David - Sydney]

They did that with RF400 2.8L IS and RF600mm 4L IS. In 800 and 1200 lenses they also inserted improved 2X converters.

I thought that the current 2x RF TC was used. Has anyone shows the MDF/tested the differences?

 

[unfocused]

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.

Well, we all feel that way. I would not call it asinine but I would say that claiming that an R7 would have to sell for $3,500, as another commenter stated, is pretty easily refuted by the facts and data of the R6 price point.

 

[mpb001]

I really don’t understand why Canon has decided to go with a crop sensor mirrorless camera and make RFS lenses. It seems like a bad move and will use resources for other products. The reason I say this is full frame camera prices are lowering all of the time. The RP can be bought for under $1000 and eventually we will probably see $500 full frame cameras.

 

[AJ]

Guess I'm late to the party once again. Anyhoo.
Sony and Nikon have APSC E-mount and Z-mount bodies, respectively. I don't see why Canon can't do up an APSC R-mount body.
I guess the big question is if it'll be a high-end birding lens, or a low-end rebel-type thing that may replace the M series.
If the rumor of two lenses is true, then a standard zoom and an ultrawide would make sense.
Sony and Nikon both have 16-50/3.5-6.3 kit lenses.
Whatever these two lenses may be, my crystal ball says to expect optics with barrel distortion and compulsory distortion correction. This will get the size and the price down.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm nearly sure there will be APS-C RF cameras and therefore also RF-S lenses.

I don't care about lenses. I already have all I need as EF and EF-S an zero problem with adapting them! A new ultra wide zoom or general purpose zoom (like 15-85) as RF-S would be nice, but I don't need it. Right now I only care about cameras.

All about the logic. A high end R7 is all about reach (pixels on duck, working distance for macro, cheaper telephoto lenses (70-200mm vs 300mm) etc) and doesn't infer that RF-s lenses must be released. Yes, adapted EF-s lenses are fine and fit for purpose and (hopefully) people needing that reach will understand the EF-s options. The RF18-45mm on the roadmap could be dual purpose kit lens for both APS-C and full frame. The only missing link for full focal length coverage is an EF-s 10-22mm equivalent. RF-s lenses are definitely not mandatory.

By the way... Even if Canon decides not to build RF-S lenses, maybe some other manufacturer will!

Unlikely given the current state of the 3rd party RF lens market... No major manufacturer is providing options but you are welcome to buy a Meike if you like.
https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-happening-with-third-party-lenses-for-the-rf-mount/

 

[David - Sydney]

That’s been my point all along.
People on this forum claim DSLRs are dead. Canon knows they sell over a million of them a year, accounting for about one-fourth of all current ILC sales. So people who believe their own opinions over facts and data will keep claiming DSLRs are dead, and Canon will go on making and selling them.

My feeling is that there are many xxxD/xxxxD kits out there sitting unused in people's houses in first world countries as they just spent >USD1000 on a mobile handset that takes more than acceptable shots. People thought that they were getting a much better camera but it was too hard to use vs phones. Choosing which new phone to upgrade to every 2 years seems to be predominately due to better camera options.
It is similar to iPods/mp3 players taking over portable CD players. Simplicity/size/average quality won.

It is more that likely that DSLRs are selling well in countries where average incomes are lower and they have the skills to get good photos.
I always found it interesting that photographers on cruse ships used lower end model bodies but reasonable lighting setups meant getting decent ie very profitable photo sales.

 

[David - Sydney]

I'm sure Canon know that a significant number of 7D/7DMkii owners were desperate for a 7DMkiii, but for reasons best known to themselves decided against it.

I always contend that the 7D/7Dii were unicorns. Very good in many ways at a pricepoint that was too good to be true. Maybe they just weren't profitable enough to warrant a 7Diii. My first DLSR was a 7D+24-105mm/4 and it was a gateway to a lot more dollars going their way

But I think Canon were wrong on that subject. They certainly aren't infallible. They went through a long spell when they sat on their laurels and became complacent, allowing Sony to take a large slice of the market. Canon have also made some notable miscalculations (swipe bar on R comes to mind). I think you may be slightly blinded by brand loyalty.

Yes, Canon was slow to release FF mirrorless models and the R seemed to be a rebadged 5Div albeit quite a decent camera. I guess that Canon saw a second-mover OEM as being a better strategy than bleeding edge. Sony proved that the market existed and people were willing to jump ship. The R5/6 certainly got everyone's attention though and the RP is still at an unbeaten price point.

Canon haven't made many errors when it comes to ergonomics though. Good on them for trying something new though. Some loved it but many didn't. I see it as a precursor to the lens control ring. I haven't used it on my RF lenses but many others love it. Good to have options.

 

[David - Sydney]

My grab-and-go camera is the R3, with the RF 24-105/4L for general use or the RF 70-200/2.8 for indoor events. For something more elaborate and less casual, I usually take the R3 with more esoteric lenses. I use the M6 when I am traveling light, either on an overnight trip with only carryon luggage, or a family vacation somewhere we've been before with less interesting photo ops.

For casual shots, it is only iPhone for me now. The computational photography is faster and more than sufficient for most uses now. The HDR/live features are surprisingly effective and easy to share.

I'll take my R5 anywhere where the iPhone can't take "better" photos.... indoor sports, telephoto, astro, macro, long exposure land/seascapes, high ISO/white balance underwater etc.
Weirdly enough, on a recent trip to Fiji (first time overseas in 2.5 years!), I only used my EF16-35mm/4. Bull shark diving, fire dancing, 35mm portraits, split over/under beach photos etc was perfect.

I tried to attach a shot of one "smiling"at me but got a server error :-(

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think the big long-term question is "Will Canon allow DSLRs and/or M to slowly wither away by not continuing to develop new models of them?

I agree, it’s the big question. Ironic that some who ‘liked’ your post seem to disagree and have decided it’s already been answered.

Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?

 

[neuroanatomist]

It might be better to say that DSLRs and the EOS M system are not dead yet.

Fair point. Then again, I'm not dead yet, and the Earth has not yet been consumed by the cataclysmic conversion of the Sun to a red dwarf. Timing is everything.

I don't think one should ignore and totally discount that Canon does not seem to be making much of an investment in either system. Certainly the annual releases of multiple new Rebels has slipped and although I don't follow the M system, it doesn't seem as though Canon has been putting a lot of effort into introducing new models. It is perfectly logical for people to look at those facts and data and surmise that the future of both the M system and DSLRs might not be particularly bright. Obviously you disagree. But you need to recognize that others can apply logic and reasoning and come to a different conclusion without being "asinine."

Where have I suggested that the future of the DSLR is bright? MILCs overtook DSLRs for unit sales a few years ago (but not that many), and MILCs definitely generate more revenue (consistent with most DSLR sales being of entry level models). But to claim that DSLRs are 'dead' is asinine, period. As I've pointed out, they have accounted for a stable 44% of ILC shipments for 2020, 2021 and so far in 2022. Anyone who concludes that a segment comprising nearly half of a market is dead is certainly not successfully using logic and reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Similarly for the M system – Japan remains the proportionately greatest consumer of MILCs (44% is the global metric, in Japan only ~21% of ILCs shipped are DLSRs), and in Japan an EOS M camera has topped the sales ranking almost every month for nearly three years.

One other interesting point. I just launched a private browser window for Amazon.com (so my personal search history is not a factor), and searched 'Canon camera'. Excluding results that weren't cameras, the results in order were 5 DSLRs, then a P&S bridge camera, then 5 more DSLRs, then the M50 II, then 3 more DSLRs, then the R6. So, for ILCs the first R-series camera came on page 2 of the search results, after 13 DSLRs and one APS-C MILC. Obviously that's geographically influenced (although the Americas still have higher MILC shipments, Europe gets more DLSRs than MILCs). But at least on Amazon.com, anyone who would conclude that DSLRs are dead would have to be an idiot. Incidentally, on amazon.de the first 4 Canon kameras are DSLRs, then the M50 II, then the R. So the DSLR is looking pretty lively in Germany, too. Except to people unable to draw logical conclusions from available data.

 

[Bishop80]

I would think the EOS M mount is already optimized for APS-C mirrorless. Why not just build a different body (ie, more DSLR-like) around that and expand the M lens lineup?
One difference between M and R mount might be the high speed comms protocol of R, but I really don't know the practical difference between the two and if it ultimately matters for "non-pro/L" APS-C lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

Is there a CR1/2/3 rating for this rumour? I just noticed that it isn't mentioned. based on the wording, you would expect CR3