It’s been a while, but an APS-C equipped EOS R body gets another mention [CR2]

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
444
117
53
I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?
 

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
115
229
"...but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body."

Why wouldn't they develop lenses tailored to the smaller image circle, which would force an upgrade to RF from RF-S glass?

Doesn't seem to make business sense, which makes me skeptical of the entire rumor.
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,237
914
Turku, Finland
I do not not have a source. I am basing this on the speculation that the entry level bodies sell better and don't need a spectacular AF and viewfinder that a 7d body would need. I think sports people might want a very low latency view finder, the one on the R felt like it was a little behind the subject.
On the contrary, a body like this could be a proving ground for the sort of EVF tech that will eventually make its way into a 1-series mirrorless camera.
 

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
94
126
I don't know; even knowing the EF-M will never be a pathway to R, I've still be looking at an M6II as a really good potential option for a minimalist camera setup I can keep with me or use on very long hikes. I don't know how small an RF lens can get, so I'm not sure that the RF mount bodies will be able to create as truly small of a camera kit as EF-M. My biggest hesitation, as you mention, has been lens selection - though I'm not convinced that there's no niche there. I don't see the M series ever being considered flagship competitors, but for size conscious users it's still a good option I think.
Agreed. I have an RP and an M6. They are both excellent cameras, and they complement each other perfectly. While the RP is certainly smaller and lighter than my previous 5D series, it's still not the same as carrying an M6. Like you mention, the M series is perfect for when you want the absolute smallest / lightest camera for long hikes and carrying around all day for hours. I use the RP and M6 pretty equally because they each have great things to offer either in terms of image quality or portability. And don't let anyone tell you the M lenses are garbage. They're great. The zooms may not have the fastest apertures, but for general everyday photography they are excellent and very sharp.
 

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
444
117
53
I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?
I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?

1) Canon could make crop-only RF lenses that are smaller/lighter/less expensive.

2) You can't sell a $1k body only RP and expect folks to start buying $2500 lenses for it. Less exotic/expensive RF lenses (by which I mean FF) are surely coming. Consider: I used EF glass on my Rebel all the time before I moved up to my 5D3.

3) If they offered a crop RF body -- and that's a big if -- it would not be to get budget-constrained folks into buying pricey glass. It would be to get everyone into one ecosystem, which has some huge advantages for Canon if they can sell the masses on it.

Again, I'm not sure Canon will do this, but there is a case to be made for one mount to rule them all. You can make a really tiny RF camera with crop. You can make beastly FF RF cameras for sports/wildlife.

- A
 
Last edited:

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
677
677
Hamburg, Germany
The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.

There is a big market for small, light and cheap cameras. The RF mount can't satisfy this market as well as the tiny EF-M system.
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
"...but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body."

Why wouldn't they develop lenses tailored to the smaller image circle, which would force an upgrade to RF from RF-S glass?

Doesn't seem to make business sense, which makes me skeptical of the entire rumor.

It only forces an upgrade if you eventually move up to an FF sensor and want to use all of it. Adapting EF-S on RF today automatically just takes a crop image, right? So moving up to a full FF sensor with an 'RF-S' lens would absolutely still work, which is better than EF-S on EF today.

So yes, crop-only lenses on RF could be a problematic move for Canon in some specifics, but they are not impossible.

- A
 

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
542
261
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
They could release a crop RF body that had a permanent focal reducer installed. So your RF 28-70 f/1.2 lens would now be an f/0.9. Interested now?? No wasted glass there.

Or, more likely, a 600mm F/4 lens teleconverted to 840mm would still shoot at f/4. Sports shooters would be shooting the 400mm f/2.8 at f/2. They'd pay $3500 for the opportunity to do so, provided it contained pro-level features that Canon hasn't yet produced in an RF body yet.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
Agreed. I have an RP and an M6. They are both excellent cameras, and they complement each other perfectly. While the RP is certainly smaller and lighter than my previous 5D series, it's still not the same as carrying an M6. Like you mention, the M series is perfect for when you want the absolute smallest / lightest camera for long hikes and carrying around all day for hours. I use the RP and M6 pretty equally because they each have great things to offer either in terms of image quality or portability. And don't let anyone tell you the M lenses are garbage. They're great. The zooms may not have the fastest apertures, but for general everyday photography they are excellent and very sharp.

Sure, but EF-M doesn't hold exclusive rights to being small and light. An RF mount camera (crop or FF):
  • Has a shallow flange to sensor distance
  • Does not require an FF grip
  • Does not require an EVF and could be used like an M6 off the LCD
  • Does not require a massive battery
So I'd imagine you could make a very very small RF body. Like EOS M (1) small, perhaps a hair taller for the RF mount diameter difference. But thickness and width could be EOS M sized if they wanted.

Screen Shot 2020-01-24 at 10.56.07 AM.png



The question is not whether Canon could do it -- the question is would Canon ever commit to the tiny RF camera idea: would Canon ever make tiny crop-only RF lenses to go with it? This rumor says no. We'll see.

(Again: I'm not an advocate for this, think it necessarily will happen or hate EOS M -- but there's no reason why RF could not fill the tiny camera niche.)

- A
 
Last edited:

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...

+1. All day.

I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).

Also, some folks pack a tiny EOS M in their bags on trips as a backup/second body. And if the trip was a birding trip, safari, etc. there's a good chance a large EF lens is being adapted on it.

I work in a different engineering field, but the adage of 'if you allow Part A to click into Part B -- regardless of how silly it would be to do that -- someone is going to do it' would certainly apply here. I don't think many folks are adapting 600 primes on their M6s, but someone out there has certainly tried to use it that way.

- A
 
Last edited:

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
94
126
Sure, but EF-M doesn't hold exclusive rights to being small and light. An RF mount camera (crop or FF):
  • Has a shallow flange to sensor distance
  • Does not require an FF grip
  • Does not require an EVF and could be used like an M6 off the LCD
  • Does not require a massive battery
So I'd imagine you could make a very very small RF body. Like EOS M (1) small, perhaps a hair taller for the RF mount diameter difference. But thickness and width could be EOS M sized if they wanted.

View attachment 188330


The question is not whether Canon could do it -- the question is would Canon ever commit to the tiny RF camera idea -- would canon ever make tiny crop-only RF lenses to go with it? This rumor says no. We'll see.

(Again: I'm not an advocate for this, think it necessarily will happen or hate EOS M -- but there's no reason why RF could not fill the tiny camera niche.)

- A
Understood. I was primarily responding to the thoughts on potentially picking up an M-series camera as a lightweight addition to your gear. I was just saying, "Go for it!"

I have no idea what Canon plans for the future. I look at the current offerings and buy what works for me today.
 
Last edited:
Jan 15, 2020
4
4
But Canon may possess marketing information that shows how much money they are losing by crop users not wanting to move up to FF because of the EF-M glass they've gathered.
Well, if you look at the EF-M palette after a couple of years of existence of this mount that loss cannot be too big. If you look at the available R lenses given for the time frame of its existence and the announcement that Canon focuses on R lenses for the next months or even years (no mention of EF-M at all, but rather a new patent for a new EF lens) it looks like a dead horse to me.

Honestly I think Nikon did it right with the Z50. The crop sensor kit lenses are pretty small, but still you can use the FF lenses like a 35mm prime on the Z50 as well as its full frame sisters. Just one development investment needed for one single prime lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

Travel_Photographer

Travel, Landscape, Architecture
Aug 30, 2019
94
126
+1. All day.

I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).

Also, some folks pack a tiny EOS M in their bags on trips as a backup/second body. And if the trip was a birding trip, safari, etc. there's a good chance a large EF lens is being adapted on it.

I work in a different engineering field, but the adage of 'if you allow Part A to click into Part B -- regardless of how silly it would be to do that -- someone is going to do it' would certainly apply here. I don't think many folks are adapting 600 primes on their M6s, but someone out there has certainly tried to use it that way.

- A
Absolutely! I use M-glass on my M6 a lot, but my favorite lens on it is actually a 400mm F5.6L. There's a lot of wildlife around where I live, I can walk around holding the lens by the barrel, and the camera just hangs there like a tiny little deck of cards. I love it, and the extra reach of the crop just adds to the appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtf and ahsanford

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
204
170
UK
I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
Agree
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,455
1,282
Honestly I think Nikon did it right with the Z50. The crop sensor kit lenses are pretty small, but still you can use the FF lenses like a 35mm prime on the Z50 as well as its full frame sisters. Just one development investment needed for one single prime lens.

That's the question. Now that Canon sees how thin they could get RF to be, does EF-M necessarily need to be a mount that is allowed to get old and gray?

It's less about Canon following Nikon so much as Canon understanding why Nikon did this. There are upsides to just one mount, even if if means Z DX (i.e. 'RF-S') lenses and Z FX (i.e. RF) lenses from a usage and naming convention.

Screen Shot 2020-01-24 at 11.40.00 AM.png


- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yaba

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
204
170
UK
Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.

There is a big market for small, light and cheap cameras. The RF mount can't satisfy this market as well as the tiny EF-M system.
True. I think there’s room for both systems and Canon is certainly big enough to keep them both going for a while. The M series will end when they stop selling.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
967
196
What options does Canon have with the 7D line?

1. Drop the 7D line altogether.

2. Replace it with an EOS-M camera.

3. Replace it with an EOS-R camera.

Considering the 7D's positioning, I think #3 is the most likely, and hence expect Canon to release an EOS-R crop camera.

Then again, the 1DX mk II can sample 4K from the center at 60fps, so a crazy idea might be a 50MP studio camera that can sample the center 20MP at 16fps, and thus double as a crop-sports camera. The image on the EVF is resampled & corrected anyway, e.g. as done for the RF 24-240mm, so it could be filled completely from either resolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: addola and bitcars