Canon talks IBIS and EOS M in a recent interview

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,341
196
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Amateur Photographer had a chance to interview Canon executives at the recent CP+ show in Yokohama, Japan. They touched on the usual things going on in the industry.
Canon also confirms (again) that IBIS is coming to future EOS R camera bodies, as well as saying the EOS M and EF-M will be around for a while. They also didn’t close the door on an APS-C EOS R camera.

You can also likely expect dual card slots on coming EOS R bodies as well. Canon has apparently heard everyone on this issue.
From the interview:
AP: Are you going to keep EOS M in its existing form, or are you going to make a APS-C camera with the RF mount?
YM: That’s a product development for the future so I can’t go into detail, and the market will dictate what sort of direction we should take. If the customers do want a small size, lightweight mount I believe...
Continue reading...
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
297
197
www.flickr.com
It's interesting to me that Canon thinks of the M mount as a small and lightweight option, though I guess it does make sense when you consider the size of the lenses currently available.

With that said, comparing the size of an M50 and an RP suggests to me that the differences in body size don't need to be substantial.
 

Attachments

Reactions: Kharan

Josh Leavitt

EOS T7i
Aug 19, 2018
79
92
If they do pursue a APS-C R mount, I'm hoping it'll include a 7D replacement.
I hope so as well. If Canon are able to improve the focus acquisition speed of DPAF, then an APS-C sensor paired with their x1.4 or x2 Teleconverters and a moderately fast telephoto (say a 200mm f/2.8L or a 400mm f/5.6L) will open up some new (and affordable) photographic opportunities for wildlife/sports photographer enthusiasts.

I don't think Canon will develop APS glass for the RF mount, but there's plenty of EF and EF-S glass to make it an affordable and effective model.
 
Reactions: pj1974

Sharlin

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
774
138
Turku, Finland
It's interesting to me that Canon thinks of the M mount as a small and lightweight option, though I guess it does make sense when you consider the size of the lenses currently available.
Of course they consider they whole system when talking about small and lightweight. As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means four times smaller lenses by volume and weight. And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.
 

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
297
197
www.flickr.com
And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.
I would argue that the M50 is the most fair comparison we can make between the RF mount cameras and the M mount cameras if we're comparing bodies with comparable features (i.e. having an EVF) and insinuating the size savings we can get because of having one mount over another. I think you can use any M mount camera with an EVF and come up with a similar size comparison. If we're not comparing equivalent features, then yea you can save a lot of space with the right sacrifices - my cell phone has a pretty small camera module but I wouldn't suggest that it's comparable to an M mount or RF mount camera either. My only suggestion here is that the RP is proof that Canon can make a pretty compact RF mount camera body, even when compared to some of the M mount bodies with similar features.
 
Reactions: Kharan

Josh Leavitt

EOS T7i
Aug 19, 2018
79
92
As much as I'd like to see the EOS M lineup continue, I can understand why Canon would more strongly favor allocating development resources to the higher margin EOS R products. Even if Canon decides to abandon the EOS M as an ILC system, they could turn right around and convert them to a series of premium fixed-lens cameras sporting APS-C sensors. For example, a G0 X model with a fixed variant of the EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS would be a dream camera of mine for backpacking trips. And a longer G2 X model with a 45-150mm would pick up where the G1 X left off. And finally, a much larger advanced bridge camera with an EOS M variant of Tamron's 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 would be an ideal travel companion.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
...Canon also confirms (again) that IBIS is coming to future EOS R camera bodies...
In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future.
It is quite a leap to call that a confirmation of anything. In fact, the whole interview consists of the interviewer asking questions and Canon responding with "we will consider that if the market demands it."

People can read into the interview whatever they want, but the truth is, all that Canon said is that they are putting products out there and are waiting to see how the market reacts. Don't expect any major reconfiguration of the lineup.
 
Reactions: scyrene and Kharan

bf

EOS RP
Jul 30, 2014
238
8
I personally think M should continue. It offers a lot in a small package.
I also like to see a range-finder style EOS R body (FF) with no EVF and a tilt screen. Similar to EOS M6 with no built in flash.

Sport/wild life high performance with R mount? I'm not a user so can't comment on the desire. My guess is Canon will develop its next Pro-DSLR first. Then offers a FF high performance Mirrorless to compete with Sony A9, and afterwards may release an APSC. I don't see it coming anytime soon. As far as I know, Sony never did it either.
 
Reactions: pj1974

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
297
197
www.flickr.com
It is quite a leap to call that a confirmation of anything. In fact, the whole interview consists of the interviewer asking questions and Canon responding with "we will consider that if the market demands it."

People can read into the interview whatever they want, but the truth is, all that Canon said is that they are putting products out there and are waiting to see how the market reacts. Don't expect any major reconfiguration of the lineup.
You're right that the comment is certainly short of a confirmation, but the below comment from Canon in this interview is a pretty good indication:

"In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future. We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features."

I have a hard time seeing Canon say IBIS will work with their in lens IS to offer better performance and then not develop it.

I think there is a fair bit of suggestion that its coming: i.e. the slide at the recent lens unveiling that said IBIS would work with in lens IS, and the 2 CR2 rumours since December, and the IBIS patent from late 2018, and the IBIS patent from earlier in 2018 to address focus stacking while using IBIS. There's been a number of indications that it could come, but still certainly short of a confirmation.
 

digitalride

EOS T7i
Apr 2, 2012
50
26
As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means four times smaller lenses by volume and weight.
...
I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.
1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame? The olympus 50mm f/2 weighs 300g while the canon 50mm f/1.8 weighs 160g. Maybe they're not the same quality but for smaller sensors you need better ( heavier due to more glass ) lenses if the pixel density is higher.

For telephoto lenses a smaller sensor doesn't really make the lens any smaller at all due to the physics of it, and you don't get more "reach" with crop compared to a higher megapixel full frame sensor with the same pixel density.

So while you can indeed make some crop lenses a little bit smaller/lighter your first order approximation is completely off base.

...

I think there will most certainly be an M100-sized R body as full frame gets cheaper and more common, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 15, but most certainly at some point in the next 30 years before Canon switches mounts again.
 

flip314

EOS T7i
Sep 26, 2018
83
87
1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame? The olympus 50mm f/2 weighs 300g while the canon 50mm f/1.8 weighs 160g. Maybe they're not the same quality but for smaller sensors you need better ( heavier due to more glass ) lenses if the pixel density is higher.
I think he's taking 1.6 * 1.6 * 1.6= ~4, maybe to try and compare equivalent focal length as well as image circle size? I don't think it works that way though... I don't believe lens length is proportional to focal length.
 

KeithBreazeal

EOS 6D MK II
Jan 16, 2014
1,245
13
www.kbvp.com
Adding dual slots and IBIS require more electronics, hence more battery power. Maintaining the current body size of the R and the battery will severely limit battery life- which is on the short end now. Look for the form factor to grow a bit. I'm holding out until Canon can get the R series to shoot sports at a minimum of 7 fps.
 
Reactions: stevelee and amorse

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
297
197
www.flickr.com
Adding dual slots and IBIS require more electronics, hence more battery power. Maintaining the current body size of the R and the battery will severely limit battery life- which is on the short end now. Look for the form factor to grow a bit. I'm holding out until Canon can get the R series to shoot sports at a minimum of 7 fps.
That's a good point. If Canon's going to offer IBIS, dual card slots, improvements in AF tracking, AND higher throughput, they may need more power than an LP-E6N can provide. I am half wondering if we'll see the higher resolution camera body stray away from the LP-E6N and use an LP-E19 from the 1DX II, or a new battery entirely.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
You're right that the comment is certainly short of a confirmation, but the below comment from Canon in this interview is a pretty good indication:

"In terms of IBIS, we are looking into it for the future. We believe IBIS will work together hand in hand with optical IS lenses, such as the ones you see in front of you, to offer better features."

I have a hard time seeing Canon say IBIS will work with their in lens IS to offer better performance and then not develop it.

I think there is a fair bit of suggestion that its coming: i.e. the slide at the recent lens unveiling that said IBIS would work with in lens IS, and the 2 CR2 rumours since December, and the IBIS patent from late 2018, and the IBIS patent from earlier in 2018 to address focus stacking while using IBIS. There's been a number of indications that it could come, but still certainly short of a confirmation.
Yeah, I agree there are lots of tea leaves pointing in that direction. I just think it is a bit of an overreach to characterize it as confirmation. And knowing how people on this forum jump to conclusions I think a bit more caution ought to be exercised before claiming a confirmation. If the next mirrorless body does not have IBIS, I can guarantee you there will be tons of forum experts claiming that Canon promised IBIS and using Craig's post as "evidence."
 
Reactions: amorse

Kit.

EOS 7D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
707
279
Of course they consider they whole system when talking about small and lightweight. As a first order approximation a 1.6x crop means four times smaller lenses by volume and weight. And it doesn't really make sense to compare the smallest R to the largest M! I doubt there will be an M100-sized R body, ever.
As a first order approximation, 1.6x crop means 1.6x smaller lenses by volume and weight, unless you are willing to give up the absolute aperture, but then you will be comparing apples and oranges.
 

Sharlin

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
774
138
Turku, Finland
1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56 , how are you getting to "four times smaller" ? And a smaller sensor means less light so if you are ever light limited you need to compare a full frame f/4 to crop f/2.8 size/weight . Even comparing the exact same focal length and aperture, are 2x crop lenses usually 4x lighter than full frame?
2.56 is the surface area, 4 is volume. Given that flange distance is not a problem with mirrorless anymore, and with EF-M you're not constrained by the large diameter of the EF/EF-S mount, you could simply reduce all the dimensions of a FF lens by 1.6 and get a 4x lighter crop lens with the same field of view and relative aperture. After all, a 28mm equivalent f/1.8 phone camera lens weighs maybe a few grams. Now, in the real world not everything in a lens scales down like that, so the real gains are less than 4x. But they can easily approach and exceed 3x.

Of course an f4 crop lens gathers less light than an f4 FF lens, but that's not really relevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. People who are in the market for a small camera aren't going to attach huge lenses just to get that FF look.

For telephoto lenses a smaller sensor doesn't really make the lens any smaller at all due to the physics of it, and you don't get more "reach" with crop compared to a higher megapixel full frame sensor with the same pixel density.
Of course a 1.6 crop factor makes telephoto lenses smaller, keeping FoV the same! Compare the EF-M 55-200mm to, say, the EF 70-300mm.

So while you can indeed make some crop lenses a little bit smaller/lighter your first order approximation is completely off base.
Have you actually seen any of the existing EF-M lenses? They are tiny.
 

digitalride

EOS T7i
Apr 2, 2012
50
26
2.56 is the surface area, 4 is volume. Given that flange distance is not a problem with mirrorless anymore, and with EF-M you're not constrained by the large diameter of the EF/EF-S mount, you could simply reduce all the dimensions of a FF lens by 1.6 and get a 4x lighter crop lens with the same field of view and relative aperture. After all, a 28mm equivalent f/1.8 phone camera lens weighs maybe a few grams. Now, in the real world not everything in a lens scales down like that, so the real gains are less than 4x. But they can easily approach and exceed 3x.
Of course an f4 crop lens gathers less light than an f4 FF lens, but that's not really relevant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. People who are in the market for a small camera aren't going to attach huge lenses just to get that FF look.
Of course a 1.6 crop factor makes telephoto lenses smaller, keeping FoV the same! Compare the EF-M 55-200mm to, say, the EF 70-300mm.
Sorry, it just doesn't work like that. EF-M lenses are smaller than EF-S because they make compromises to be small in some cases, and for wide angle the smaller registration distance allows them to be smaller than EF-S. EF-S lenses are not anywhere near 3x smaller than EF. Ask yourself why aren't olympus 2x crop lenses 8x smaller/lighter than canon full frame lenses? If you can make a 1.6x crop lens 3x smaller than a full frame lens while keeping all the other qualities the same you have a very lucrative future ahead of you as a lens designer.

I don't think you understand my other points, I recommend you do a little more research.
 
Last edited:

bdbender4

I'm New Here
Jan 19, 2017
24
12
This is the same non-answer for the future of EF-M that they have been giving for the last 18 months. I gave up on waiting for something other than low-level consumer-zoom-packages. The 32mm f/1.4, which I have, is nice but: Weather resistance in this system? IBIS? Updated sensors? My M5 and various lenses are packed away and I am greatly enjoying my new Nikon Z6.