Is there an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor coming? [CR1]

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
technically not possible. R mount "too large" for that. Even a "RF-S" 24/2.8 would be larger than the EF-M 22/2.0 :)
It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,094
310
50
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...
Yes. It should be at least technically possible for any of the EF-M optical formulae to be converted to an RF-S lens should Canon wish to do so. They would probably make them slightly wider barrels to better suit the ergonomics of the R, but they optics inside could be identical.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,033
338
It seems that since Canon introduced a mid range FF mirrorless camera many believe that everything is going to be that way. I wonder if similar things are written in Nikon sites too. I also wonder if these people are professionals, hobbyists, fan boys or simply internet surfers...
 
Last edited:

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,312
82
S Florida
We seem to be determined to make this more complicated than it needs to be. A simple solution would be:
EF > R mount with RF lenses (FF), wll accept EF/EF-S with adapter
EF-S > R-S mount with RS lenses (APS-C) and RF lenses, will accept EF/EF-S lenses with adapter
M remains unchanged until sales dictate otherwise

Camera release dates are more problematic since processing power seems to be the bottleneck.
XXXD & XXD & 6 series are ready now.
5 & 7 series should be available within a year or two
1 series is anyone's guess
It seems that since Canon introduced a mid range FF mirrorless camera many believe that everything is going to be that way. I wonder if similar things are written in Nikon sites too. I also wonder if these people are professionals, hobbyists, fan boys or simply internet surfers...
Certainly the R mount is the future of Canon. The timeline is the only thing in question.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
335
285
117
Williamsport, PA
The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.
As I said the M lenses cannot be adapted to the R system. Plain and simple.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,989
1,543
Irving, Texas
i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently. More than 99% for crop lenses. and why should they? after all, they have paid in full for "top notch" AF systems to get a single job done: put focus precisely at the distance to selected subject and keep it there even when subjects moves about - without fuss or fail.

Canon could very well make and sell almost all of their lenses (except ts and maybe macro) without any focus ring. Especially EF-M and RF, which are all focus-by-wire. it would make more sense - if at all - to enable manual focussing control via multifunction slider bar (the one on back of EOS R). "swipe instead of twist". :)

i agree with your points but really think the days of "manually focussing action" are over. I think 99% of lens buyers today never touch the manual focus rings on their lenses, except inadvertently. More than 99% for crop lenses. and why should they? after all, they have paid in full for "top notch" AF systems to get a single job done: put focus precisely at the distance to selected subject and keep it there even when subjects moves about - without fuss or fail.

Canon could very well make and sell almost all of their lenses (except ts and maybe macro) without any focus ring. It would make more sense - if at all - to enable manual focusing control via multi-function slider bar.

It is about tlme to finally and fully utilize all advantages possible with electronic/digital imaging. Transition from analogue era photography to digital age has been dragged out over a much too long time because of (wrong) bowing to some conservative users by ultra-conservative, octagenarian-run japanese companies. and looking at Zeiss' ZX1 botched UI concept, german makers are not better either.:)
Um, no.

1. You might be one of the 99% you are talking about, but throwing a number out there like that when you have absolutely no idea is just silly.

2. Swiping a bar to get focus? You don't use manual focus much. One would never get the precision needed for manual focus by swiping the back of the camera with a finger. Manual focus is another tool for creative control. We don't all just take snapshots. Some of us just like the challenge. There are people around here that pay big money for Zeiss manual focus lenses that are what? Modern. I myself have 41 manual focus lenses all acquired in the last 18 months.

3. Again, you pull 99% out to bolster your argument. It's a made up number. Canon knows people use manual focus and people pay for that as well as AF. I use it now. I used it when I was running crop sensor cameras and EF-s lenses. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean virtually nobody else does. You are not the market. Believe it or not, those octogenarians happen to know the market far better than you and I. The sales numbers prove it. I would not buy a lens that did not offer manual focus.

I don't know how old you are, but assuming an old man / woman isn't able to function in, or understand, the modern world shows a bias that is ignorant. Who the hell do you think laid the building blocks for today's technology? There happen to be some pretty old, extremely smart and knowledgeable people in these forums that can run cognizant and intelligent circles around you and I, sonny boy. There are some very smart people here that are way past their prime. There are doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Yup, there are a lot of pro photographers here too. I am not one. Just a hobbyist. All of them can teach you and I a thing or two. You should not be looking down your nose at the elderly or the values they hold. Show some respect and consider your audience. Just because a person is old does not mean that person has out lived his abilities and usefulness. The Japanese happen to understand that and hold their elderly in high esteem, unlike many westerners.

I really get pissed off when people throw the age of somebody out there as though they should somehow be put out to pasture. If you can't make your point without discriminating because somebody is elderly, you should probably keep your mouth shut. Stuff like that just shows your own misunderstanding of people and the world. It shows arrogance and a sense of superiority due to nothing more than an age difference.

BTW: Those Japanese ultra conservative octogenarians aren't "bowing" to what YOU say are 1% of users.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zim and tron
So just because Canon made a FF mirrorless the fan boys think that APS-C EF cameras will die?
I usually don't respond to trolls who call others a fanboys, but you might be an exception. 90D and 7DIII are a high probability. Something like 7DIV less so. There will be some point in time, when even here Canon will turn mirrorless. And then my claims persist and your answer does not provide any future path resolution. So once again - APS-C EOS-R is imo a high probability ... sometimes in the future ....
 

mirage

EOS RP
Jul 31, 2018
297
111
Yes. It should be at least technically possible for any of the EF-M optical formulae to be converted to an RF-S lens should Canon wish to do so. They would probably make them slightly wider barrels to better suit the ergonomics of the R, but they optics inside could be identical.
difference in mount parameters between EF-S and R mountvare large. It would take a completely new optical design for "RF-S" crop lenses. i don't think Canon will invest into that effort to re-create the limited EF-S universe again, when existing EF-S lenses are fully functional on EOS mount. Especially at a time when Canon lens designers are working overtime on RF lens lineup for FF imaging circle.
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,270
181
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
It seems to me that it is will be quite possible to make R APS-C lenses close to the same size and weight as their M counterparts. Image circle is still APS-C not FF, so the same "M" interior lens design only needs a wider mount diameter. No one says the entire lens needs to be the same diameter as the mount. Many lenses are wider than the mount, so why not narrower? If the aesthetics aren't pleasing, they can just put in empty space. Sightly heavier due to the wider mount - everything else the same. Viola, an R APS-C lens close to the same weight and size as the M lens. Not a lens designer, so could be wrong...
Seems a good route: omit the EOS M mount in 5 years or so but start with APS-C lenses for the EOS R mount. A great advantage would be the chance to have only one mount in the (medium far) future for FF / APS-C / Super 35 with a lot of contacts and high speed communication to support future functions.

EDIT: Doesn't make it easier to justify buying the EF-M f/1.4 32mm!
 

mirage

EOS RP
Jul 31, 2018
297
111
really get pissed off when people throw the age of somebody out there as though they should somehow be put out to pasture.
well, i am convinced that at a certain age people should step down (or be removed) from positions where they have direct, first-line control over the future of countries, corporations or any other organization (eg a church). No problem with advisory roles to contribute the wealth of their experience and give reasoned, balanced feedback to younger ones running the show.

what age? well "legal retirement" age in most of europe was and often still is about 65. While there is obviously an amazing amount of individual variation, i'd consider 65 to mac. 70 a very reasonable threshold. even the catholic church has a defined retirement age for bishops (75), but absurdly not for the position of its supreme commander in chief (pope).

mandatory retirement age should definitely apply to any political/public office from head of state/president to Superior Court Judges etc, and church leaders including the pope and to CEOs and managing/board directors of public (stock market listed) corporations.

No disrespect, but simply from a certain age onwards, most people are too much concerned to preserve some status quo and power structures from the past, rather than actively looking for new solutions and shaping the future. As witnessed at ultra-conservative Canon.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
200
122
Canon knows people use manual focus and people pay for that as well as AF. I use it now.
Of course you do. So does anyone who also has the mindset to buy an L lens, or a Sigma Art. Most Canon users don't do any of those.

Do you think that the average xxD / xxxD / EF-S purchaser going into Best Buy has manual focus ANYWHERE on their 'essential items' list? Of course not. And that's the bulk of Canon's market, for whom P-mode is default and the manual focus ring is that annoying thing that messes-up photos when bumped.

Manual focus will remain for EF and RF-L lenses. I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear from the lower tiers just like it disappeared from P&S and bridge-cameras. Touch-screen focus point selection won there, not twisty-barrel-squint-through-viewfinder focusing.

You are not the market
And you, with 41 manual focus lenses, you are not even a rounding error in a subset of a subset of the market. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mirage

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,658
2,910
well, i am convinced that at a certain age people should step down (or be removed) from positions where they have direct, first-line control over the future of countries, corporations or any other organization (eg a church). No problem with advisory roles to contribute the wealth of their experience and give reasoned, balanced feedback to younger ones running the show.

what age? well "legal retirement" age in most of europe was and often still is about 65. While there is obviously an amazing amount of individual variation, i'd consider 65 to mac. 70 a very reasonable threshold. even the catholic church has a defined retirement age for bishops (75), but absurdly not for the position of its supreme commander in chief (pope).

mandatory retirement age should definitely apply to any political/public office from head of state/president to Superior Court Judges etc, and church leaders including the pope and to CEOs and managing/board directors of public (stock market listed) corporations.

No disrespect, but simply from a certain age onwards, most people are too much concerned to preserve some status quo and power structures from the past, rather than actively looking for new solutions and shaping the future. As witnessed at ultra-conservative Canon.
I see you have as your signature "Mirrorfree Member". As you are someone who considers they understand the young, you should look at the definition of "member" in the Urban Dictionary https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Member
No disrespect, of course.
 

mirage

EOS RP
Jul 31, 2018
297
111
i own and use AF cameras ever since way back when Minolta first launched it in its SLRs (Maxxum 7000). Ever since I have only turned an MF ring on a lens in the rare events when i could not get AF to do its job- eg in too low contrast scenes. I found that most often i coild also not get good focus manually. With today's AF systems as in EOS R with 5000+ AF points all across the frame and "up to" -6 EV (=should realistically work down to -3 EV) i do not see any need for manual focus. And if for specific purposes, then with camera tethered and focus controlled by software (eg focus stacking) - no manual focus rings needed on lenses, but "focus by wire" essential.

i like "mirror-free" cameras and would happily also buy "ring-free" lenses. actually also no zoom ring on zooms, i would be happy to zoom using multi-function slide on camera body (EOS R).

yes, 99% is a "made- up number", but i don't think it is far from reality for today's customers.

it is just yet another example for the *unnecessarily ultra-conservative* approach camera makers have been taking in the transition from yesteryear's analog-mechanical photography equipment to today's opportunities possible with electronic-digital imaging gear.
 
Last edited:

Daner

EOS M50
Aug 15, 2017
28
16
Stockholm
Thought about it a little more: a hypothetical "EOS R7" with body like EOS R and e.g. a 28MP DP-AF APS-C sensor and full-bore 10fps with AE and AF-tracking with "no caveats, no footnotes, no hidden limitations" ... [and 4k/60 and dual SD UHS II card slots :)] ... priced like a 7D III DSLR, well below FF EOS R - say 1699,- to 1899,- range
with the following lenses
* EF-S 10-18 for wide-zoom
* EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 for standard zoom
* EF-S 24/2.8 pancake to go fairly small and discreet
* EF-S 60/2.8 macro as close-up and portrait lens
* EF 70-200/4 L IS [Mk. I] for short tele zoom and/or
* EF 100-400 II as long(er) tele zoom
could be a rather nice setup

Lots of EF-S lenses are available second hand in "very lightly used, excellent condition" for very little money. So one could build a killer "low-cost/high capability" crop setup. With faster glass than most EF-M lenses and body/grip size more to the liking of those who find EOS M camera bodies too small for their hands or for use with bigger lenses.

Note to myself: maybe I should take a 17-55 from the hands of some fellow who has hardly ever used it. Just in case. :)
I'm a 7DMkII user and I demoed the R two days ago. IMO, if they plan to replace the 7D series with an R series body with an APS-C sensor, it will need to include the focus point controls that 7DMkII and 1D series users have grown accustomed to. The optional battery grip will need these as well. Combining those with the low-light capabilities and the additional focus points of the R would be very welcome. Of course, I would also like them to emphasize reliable eye-detect and subject tracking capabilities. It will need to support at least 10 fps shooting. The 80D sensor would be a clear improvement over what we have now, but any additional improvement(s) would be appreciated. Dual SD UHS II card slots should be a given, and I would like to see them stick with the same battery form factor (LP-E6(N)), to allow swapping between any/all of the models that use those. The smaller sensor could potentially make room for IBIS, but I don't do much video and typically shoot at high enough shutter speeds that I'm not sure that the cost and battery life tradeoffs would be worth it for me. They will make their decisions based upon the needs of a broader cross-section of their potential users.

Lens-wise, my EF-S 10-18 for wide-zoom is fine. My EF-S 17-55 2.8 is great for low-light stills, but it is entirely too noisy and the zoom is too sticky for video, I much prefer my EF-S 18-135 (nano-USM) for everyday use, as it is smaller, lighter, smoother, focuses faster, and is much more versatile than my 17-55. The fact that I found a lightly used one for about half the price of new makes it even better. For portraits I use an EF 85 1.8 that I also picked up used. I also found a used EF 200 2.8L II used for a very good price, and it works wonderfully for my needs.

The prospect of replacing my 7DMkII with a mirrorless equivalent that could use all of my lenses while opening up the possibility of using R-mount lenses as well is tempting. If they can also include a small built-in flash to trigger off-camera speedlights optically, it would be even more compelling.
 
Last edited:

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,094
310
50
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
difference in mount parameters between EF-S and R mountvare large. It would take a completely new optical design for "RF-S" crop lenses. i don't think Canon will invest into that effort to re-create the limited EF-S universe again, when existing EF-S lenses are fully functional on EOS mount. Especially at a time when Canon lens designers are working overtime on RF lens lineup for FF imaging circle.
Did you even read my message? I said *EF-M* optical formula, designed for an 18mm flange distance would generally work fine with the 20mm flange distance on the RF mount (because the rear can protrude into the body several mm). This is nothing to do with the EF-S universe.

If they can essentially do the same lens for EF-M and for RF-S with just a different mount and shell around it, that's two products for two different markets at almost no extra development cost.

And. The key thing here is what will they bundle with an APS-C R body? They need at the very least an RF 18-55 equivalent (although more likely to be something a bit more versatile).

Now.... The only other possibility that makes sense is the new patent for an 16-60 or 17-70 FF lens. If this was a low-cost RF lens then it could very well end up being both a reasonably good full-frame ultrawide to standard zoom OR a very good APS-C crop standard zoom. If they can do this cheap enough it would be both a viable standard lens for the APS-C body *and* would be something that could appeal to full-frame users.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,094
310
50
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Manual focus will remain for EF and RF-L lenses. I wouldn't be surprised to see it disappear from the lower tiers
It won't disappear from EF-M because there's still a premium tier (M5/M6) for which this is important.

What I think is MUCH more likely is that the electronic manual focus ring on EF-M lenses could switch with future EOS M bodies into being a control ring like on RF lenses, where manual focus may be one option but other options such as aperture control can be substituted. Obviously it'd switch back to focus if the MF button is triggered,

My understanding is that the focus control is done via communication over the EF-M mount even in manual focus mode, so this should be possible even with existing EF-M lenses if the body works this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mirage

mirage

EOS RP
Jul 31, 2018
297
111
Even EF-M optical formulae would necessitate a major re-design. 18x48 is quite some difference to 20x54. Not worth the effort, i think. EF-S does the job just fine on R mount. people wanting EOS R-sized bodies are clearly not after the most compact setup ... so adding athat little adapter to inexpensive EF-S lens should be no issue to "80D/7D" user group wanting a mirrorfree EOS "R7" with crop sensor. in short: no need for RF-S lenses.

but a 16-60 RF lens (FF capable) may well come. Good on FF and on APS-C. Not sure whether it could be "imexpensive" though, even when only f/6.3 on the long end.

btw: 17-70 and 16-60 patents are for EF mount (look at BF) not for RF, but i don't believe they'll ever bring it to market as EF lenses.
 
Last edited:

Photorex

EOS RP
Nov 19, 2016
243
34
... EOS R with 5000+ AF points all across the frame and "up to" -6 EV (=should realistically work down to -3 EV).
EOS R AF sensitivity:
-6 EV with a f/1.2 lens
5DMarkIV AF Sensizivity in Liveview Mode (otherwise it is not compareable to the EOS R)
-4 EV with f/2.8 lens

If one does the math right will find that this -6 EV from the EOS R is in deed 1/3 EV worse than that of the 5D Mark IV

EOS R with f2.8 lens: -3.7 EV
or the other way around
5DMark IV with f/1.2 lens: -6.3 EV

regards
Frank
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF