Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

[flaviojzk]

Does this mean the 18-45mm will only cover the APS-C image circle? Oh man, I was so hyped for it, thinking it'd be for 35mm

Me too, I am waiting for a consumer uwa zoom for my rp. Hope it is a full frame lens that could also be used as a kit for the R10

 

[vjlex]

While I have been a strong believer that we would eventually see APS-C R bodies, I am not necessarily in the camp that say the M cameras are dead. Will they be phased out eventually? Sure. But I am not sure that even with the impending release of the R10 that it spells the immediate end of the house of M. I don't know how reliable a rumor it is, but there is a rumored M50 III slated for the end of the year. For all those who think it has to be one or the other, please remember there is space for different bodies and mounts to exist that target different types of users. While the M50 might be the end of the road for M for me, there is still room for a compact, self-contained system like the M. I'll be glad if it is still there and maintained, even if I myself am no longer its target market.

 

[C4RBON]

From Canon's perspective, RF-S makes sense for several reasons:
- Customers with RF-S APS-C/low-spec bodies can eventually "upgrade" to the expensive L lenses without needing a super-expensive body. Canon can produce cheaper APS-C bodies and lenses to attract entry-level customers, and then keep them as they step-up to more expensive equipment.
- More than just a physical interface, the RF mount enables some features that Canon could never implement on the EF-M system, like storing optical/correction information on the lens, and the control ring.
- As EF lenses leave the market, EF-M will eventually lose some of it's flexibility (since adapting EF lenses to EF-M was a good selling point for the system).

I don't see how the RF-S system could result in a package as small as the EF-M. Maybe Canon will surprise me; or, maybe Canon has decided that the small/travel MILC market isn't worth pursuing?
I personally hope that the EF-M system can live on as Canon's small travel system; there is finally (circa 2018) a good selection of travel-oriented lenses; that was always the big complaint with EF-M system. The EF-M system is a nice cohesive package; the lenses share a similar aesthetic, size, and price. It has a familiar Canon menu system. And it is compatible (via mount adapter) with the large back-catalog of EF lenses; those lenses won't be obsolete for a long time to come.

 

[tbgtomcom]

All great news

 

[Czardoom]

One spec doesn't make sense in regards to the R10 being a rebel/m50 replacement - the 15-23 fps. That high a fps makes me wonder if the R10 is the 90D mirrorless replacement and the R7 is going to be very high end. On the one hand it seems odd to release two crop cameras that are mid to high end and both with high fps for action possibilities. On the other hand, Canon has stated that they are concentrating on higher end users no doubt because they are the ones who buy the higher end ($$$) lenses.

Just looking at sales figures on Amazon, Rebels and M50 cameras with various kits are always among the best sellers. So, perhaps Canon doesn't feel the need to replace them just yet. I think eventually we will see rebel crop R cameras as in the long run it seem like it must be cheaper to manufacture only one type of camera and drop all the costs associated with mirrors and their assembly. The R10 might be that first Rebel replacement, but maybe it is not. Or, of course, the 15-23 fps may be incorrect, which is quite possible.

 

[blackcoffee17]

One spec doesn't make sense in regards to the R10 being a rebel/m50 replacement - the 15-23 fps. That high a fps makes me wonder if the R10 is the 90D mirrorless replacement and the R7 is going to be very high end. On the one hand it seems odd to release two crop cameras that are mid to high end and both with high fps for action possibilities. On the other hand, Canon has stated that they are concentrating on higher end users no doubt because they are the ones who buy the higher end ($$$) lenses.

Just looking at sales figures on Amazon, Rebels and M50 cameras with various kits are always among the best sellers. So, perhaps Canon doesn't feel the need to replace them just yet. I think eventually we will see rebel crop R cameras as in the long run it seem like it must be cheaper to manufacture only one type of camera and drop all the costs associated with mirrors and their assembly. The R10 might be that first Rebel replacement, but maybe it is not. Or, of course, the 15-23 fps may be incorrect, which is quite possible.

The M6 II can already do 14 fps with AF and 30 fps from a slightly cropped region.

 

[Jethro]

Well, only 13 more sleeps until we find out for sure ...

Just as interesting as the specs of these two bodies (and lenses) will be the accompanying announcement which should provide clues not just on the future of the various M mount bodies, but also the Rebel/XXD/XXXD ranges. These two new bodies can't cover the whole of these ranges, so ... what is the intention? Relatively quick death for the M bodies, and then slow transition for the various DSLR APS-C bodies? There is a wide range of specs and $values within the current APS-C bodies.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The Canon M is a glorified point and shoot. It is small, compact and easy to travel with. It is a simplified system and it has a niche.
It is a niche that really doesn't require much upgrading, it performs really well at what it does today.
The logic going round that the R10 and other APS-C bodies are meant to replace the M line makes no sense.
Are they going to make small tiny APS-C R bodies and tiny RF-S lenses to go with it?
How would it be an upgrade path having a tiny M size body to mount on the RF 24x70. It would be awkward.
It does make sense this is an expansion of the R line to build on the model Canon had with the EOS EF line.

The M is a mature product. Even if Canon isn't planning any new bodies or lenses for it, there's no reason to demarket it as long as the revenue it generates exceeds the cost to keep it in production. The same is true for any product. People who insist it should be killed are basically saying "I don't have a use for it so Canon shouldn't make it".

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

RF 18-45mm and RF 18-150mm lenses make a lot of sense too. I doubt they will be labelled "RF-S" though... Canon has stated there will be none of those. What I think they meant though, is that there will be no "crop only" lenses with a modified mount designed to prevent them from being used on full frame cameras, the way there were with EF-S lenses (versus full frame capable EF lenses). There simply is no longer need for that.

When exactly did Canon say that? I've seen similar references to such a statement but the only place I can find it mentioned is on rumor sites and photo forums.

IMO, it is unwise for companies to categorically make statements that "we will not do that." It only handicaps them or puts egg on their face when their plans change. Like when Adobe said they would offer perpetual licenses for Lightroom "indefinitely".

 

[David - Sydney]

I am happy for the APS-C supporters to get the camera that you guys were asking for.

What is now interesting to me is:
- Will the M200 be replaced by R mount equivalent body?
- Will/if the RP be replaced soon?
- What RFs lenses will be available to replace the M ecosystem (assuming that it will be replaced) and what size/weight they will be. I assume a quality wide angle for the R7 users as well

EF-m lenses (all 60.9mm diameter)
11–22mm f/4 – 5.6 IS 220 g
15–45mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 130 g => RF-S 18-45mm f/3.5-5.6
18–150mm f/3.5 – 6.3 IS 300 g => RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3
55–200mm f/4.5 – 6.3 IS 260 g
22mm f/2 105 g
28mm f/3.5 IS Macro 130 g
32mm f/1.4 IS 235g

 

[David - Sydney]

You aren't looking in the right place. https://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ Just because you can still buy a particular lens doesn't mean it is still in production. There are currently only 6 EF-s lenses and 7 EF-M lenses. What is left in the EF-s line is also a pretty weird mix (mostly wide and no telephotos). I count 28 EF lenses (including tilt-shift lenses) and again, the mix is pretty weird with many of the best gone (and those will likely be the next to show up on the RF list).

No need for telephoto EF-s lenses as EF lenses cover those focal lengths perfectly (if wider diameter)

 

[takesome1]

What is so funny?

The M is not a serious sport or wildlife camera with the tiny batteries, no weather sealing, no viewfinder, no RF compatibility. I like the M system for the size but it's not logical for Canon to keep it.

Look at the Nikon Z50. It's about the same size as the M6/M50 while the Z mount is the same size as the RF. So it's possible to make a small camera.

Back in the 7D II days "reach" was tested. Smaller pixels do not translate to the 1.6 crop. The 7D II gave you about 20% of what people term "reach" over the 5D II. Then came along the 5Ds R and "reach" no longer existed. If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5. People still talk "reach", that is often an illusion. The real comparison is resolution, how it relates to other bodies with lower and greater pixel density and how does the "crop" body compare to a full frame body with a similar crop. "Reach" and the superiority of the 7D II line is one that many highly intelligent people bought into in earlier years and once they tested the theory changed their beliefs. However it is a marketing tool that is used to make you believe your 500mm is now a 800mm.

To the second part it depends on what "serious" means, but with its 55x200 mm attached it has taken some fine wildlife pictures for me. It has its place, in the pocket, the wives purse a backpack when weight really matters. It is, and always has been IMO, a glorified point and shoot.

With a 100x500 attached to any body both the pocket and wives purse will be eliminated. A small camera on this lens would have poor ergonomics IMO.

 

[takesome1]

The M is a mature product. Even if Canon isn't planning any new bodies or lenses for it, there's no reason to demarket it as long as the revenue it generates exceeds the cost to keep it in production. The same is true for any product. People who insist it should be killed are basically saying "I don't have a use for it so Canon shouldn't make it".

Canon could ride with it for years, keep the lenses they have and just update the little body.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Canon tried to call the 90D a replacement for both the 80D and 7D Mark II.

Not trying to start an argument, but when did Canon make that statement with regard to the 7D Mark II? The only place I've seen mention of such a statement is in online forums and on rumor sites.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5.

How do you figure? Without getting into a debate on how much pixel density is necessary, a 32.5 MP APS-C sensor with 1.6 crop factor is equivalent pixel density to 83.2 MP at full frame. That's almost double what the R5 has.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5.

Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.

 

[Rocky]

But canon R10 is either a document scanner or battery grip for R5/R6 when I googled.
Regardless, I hope they will release an APSC R 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which used to be my all time favorite on both ef-s and ef-m systems.

It will be a pretty large lens. Just look at the EF 17-40 F4 L

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

This creates somewhat of a dilemma for me. But a good dilemma.

I satisfied my high-performance mirrorless APS-C craving last year with a Sony a6400 and never looked back. It works great with every EF lens I've tried on it, and I got a better keeper rate at the few airshows I've been to with it than I used to get with the 7Dii.

Until I bought that, I had been exclusively a Canon ILC user since 1982. I've said all along that I'd love for Canon to give me a compelling reason to go back to them. I haven't replaced any of my EF lenses so it's not as though I have a big investment in Sony glass. Maybe $250 total for the extra cost of the 16-50 kit and a used 55-210 from Craigslist for hiking/biking purposes.

I also bought a Canon EF-RF adapter, so I would have one "just in case" since those were pretty hard to find last year. So I'm set there.

If the R7 turns out to be the ultra super crop-R5 these specs suggest, I might just preorder one on announcement day. My way of thanking Canon. You built it, so I've come. This time next year, I'll have two kids in college, so it's pretty much now or never! Or at least, now or maybe by the time the R7 Mark II comes out.

 

[takesome1]

How do you figure? Without getting into a debate on how much pixel density is necessary, a 32.5 MP APS-C sensor with 1.6 crop factor is equivalent pixel density to 83.2 MP at full frame. That's almost double what the R5 has.

It is not like you get the full benefit of the 1.6x.

 

[takesome1]

Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.

We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.