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

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
930
174
How will it be impossible to shoot wide angle? Two articles before this one is a patent for an RF 17-70, there's already a 15-35L, there is an RF-EF adapter to allow using the EF-S lenses, and there are already third party options coming out. There's far from zero options. The fact that current RF lens development is for full frame doesn't preclude it from use on an APS-C sensor camera as long as it has the RF mount.
Canon makes two EF-S lenses as wide as 10mm, equivalent to 16mm on FF. The RF 15-35mm on crop would be equivalent to 24mm on FF, that's a big difference.

I think the hint is with the new EF 11-24mm. Pretty close to the EF-S 10-22mm's range, and there's no EF-S lens starting @7mm, so maybe Canon plans on telling customers that lens is their new ultra wide zoom. Then again, maybe the market shrank to the point there's no profit in competing with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6mm.
 

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
297
60
Austria
www.flickr.com
there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses

This is really good news. The EF-S are really strange: you have a smaller APS-C sensor, that means optical aberrations of the lenses are more critical than with FF sensors. Yet, you mount cheaper EF-S lenses that have more aberrations on APS-C sensors when you should mount better lenses really to get comparable image quality. Plus, EF-S lenses prevent you from upgrading to FF cameras. So I think it is a really good decision not to produce any RF-S lenses.

Bottom line: if you save on the sensor, you should invest in lenses, which saves you noting in the end. If you save on the sensor and on the lenses, why not use the M system right away? This way you save on weight and size as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: angrykarl

Tom W

5D Mk IV
Sep 5, 2012
261
213
On the one hand, it seems like it would have to be a little larger than the M series, meaning that the size advantage of the smaller sensor would not be realized.

On the other hand, it would provide a direct pathway to migrating to full frame bodies, particularly if they make the 17-70 RF IS lens, since it is a full frame lens.

I wonder if they could make a couple of the EF-M lenses in the R mount, such as the 22, 32, and 11-22, all of which are very good lenses.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to make an M6 II in an R-mount body, I don't imagine. It'd just be bigger. Maybe this is where the sports/wildlife crop body may show up.

Who knows...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

Tom W

5D Mk IV
Sep 5, 2012
261
213
there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses

This is really good news. The EF-S are really strange: you have a smaller APS-C sensor, that means optical aberrations of the lenses are more critical than with FF sensors. Yet, you mount cheaper EF-S lenses that have more aberrations on APS-C sensors when you should mount better lenses really to get comparable image quality. Plus, EF-S lenses prevent you from upgrading to FF cameras. So I think it is a really good decision not to produce any RF-S lenses.

Bottom line: if you save on the sensor, you should invest in lenses, which saves you noting in the end. If you save on the sensor and on the lenses, why not use the M system right away? This way you save on weight and size as well.
The EF-S came about because the need for what constitutes ultra-wide lenses on the full frame EF mount made it difficult to make decent quality optics. The EF-S lens actually protrudes into the mirror box about 4-5 mm, allowing easier optical designs. It was a workaround from day one. And, of course, since the image circle didn't need to be as large, they also made that smaller, meaning not fully compatible with full frame (won't mount properly anyway, and some EF-S lenses would strike the mirror if they did).
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
I think the hint is with the new EF 11-24mm. Pretty close to the EF-S 10-22mm's range, and there's no EF-S lens starting @7mm, so maybe Canon plans on telling customers that lens is their new ultra wide zoom. Then again, maybe the market shrank to the point there's no profit in competing with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6mm.

Agree on the FLs being similar, but Canon is not going to do this. You can pull that trick with (say) a ~ $500-1000 EF UWA zoom and argue it's a high quality standard zoom for crop. But you can't tell a Rebel or XXD owner that that should bolt a $2700 optical instrument on to their plasticky bodies and tell them that's the only option for shooting the Grand Canyon.

If Canon will put RF and crop together just for the birders / 7D3 devotees in one lower res / high fps model, they will likely not make RF-S crop image circle lenses. Folks will bolt long EF glass on that and snap away. RF + crop would become a once every 5-6 years sort of camera like the 7D line is, like astro cameras are, i.e, they will become niche exceptions to the normal RF and crop pipelines.

But if Canon believes the future of the business is one mount for everyone, a handful of smaller/inexpensive RF-S crop image circle lenses need to happen, and some RF-S instrument like the EF-S 10-18 or EF-M 11-22 would be a certainty.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
It wouldn't be all that difficult to make an M6 II in an R-mount body, I don't imagine. It'd just be bigger. Maybe this is where the sports/wildlife crop body may show up.

Who knows...

Again, it wouldn't be that much bigger. Thickness and width could be highly similar to the EOS-M, and the height would get a hair taller for the added mount diameter.

I'm not joking when I say Canon could make a roughly EOS M-sized RF mount body... But I see zero point in doing that without RF-S lenses, or whatever bag-footprint size savings they engineer would be obliterated by the size of the full frame RF lenses attached to it.

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


- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Why not APS-H?

Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)

They make a ton of crop and a ton of FF. That lets them focus on getting the most out of crop and FF mirrorboxes (for SLRs), crop and FF OVFs (for SLRs) and crop and FF shutters (for all cameras).

Why start making a niche APS-H line that will have very little volume?

I don't know why the old 1D line (with APS-H) died off, but I'd have to guess it's pretty doggone expensive to keep making shutters, mirrorboxes, OVFs just for that size. (Unless they used true FF internals for those 1D cameras, which I do not know.)

- A
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
570
401
Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)

They make a ton of crop and a ton of FF. That lets them focus on getting the most out of crop and FF mirrorboxes (for SLRs), crop and FF OVFs (for SLRs) and crop and FF shutters (for all cameras).

Why start making a niche APS-H line that will have very little volume?

I don't know why the old 1D line (with APS-H) died off, but I'd have to guess it's pretty doggone expensive to keep making shutters, mirrorboxes, OVFs just for that size. (Unless they used true FF internals for those 1D cameras, which I do not know.)

- A
And after spending all that money on so few units, they have to raise the price per unit to recoup the fixed costs.

At that point, *I'd* certainly be tempted to say, "let them get their 1.3 crop out of photoshop."
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
930
174
Agree on the FLs being similar, but Canon is not going to do this. You can pull that trick with (say) a ~ $500-1000 EF UWA zoom and argue it's a high quality standard zoom for crop. But you can't tell a Rebel or XXD owner that that should bolt a $2700 optical instrument on to their plasticky bodies and tell them that's the only option for shooting the Grand Canyon.
IMHO, the plasticky body would be an EOS-M, and its ultra wide zoom would be the EF-M 11-22mm.

If Canon will put RF and crop together just for the birders / 7D3 devotees in one lower res / high fps model, they will likely not make RF-S crop image circle lenses.
Precisely.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
162
138
I used a 7D camera for years. Because it was the natural continuation of the XXD series camera bodies.

I never used it for reach - but used it for studio and also for landscape, because auto-bracketing at very fast frame rates gives you a higher chance of success.

Some people liked the series because it offered dual card slots, a more compact camera than full frame, a fabulous viewfinder and a very durable camera.

and I really doubt I'm alone here.
But to my point, how often did you use it with EF-s lenses?
 

NetMage

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2018
25
37
I use my 7D almost exclusively with the 15-85 EF-S, but I got the 7D as the real successor to the 50D, not for action/birding. I haven’t upgraded to the 7D II because it felt like it was targeted too much in that direction, but I’d still like a 50D/7D successor and not the compromised 90D.
 

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
127
52
I think Canon need to concentrate on releasing a high end R and an EOS-RII plus some decent non-L lenses like a set of f1.8 primes. Maybe even a video orientated R. I think until they have a good couple of new cameras and some less expensive glass, Canon shouldn’t be putting out an aps-c R just yet.
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
610
732
I would say if canon are not going to produce RFs lenses then it is safe to say the M line is safe and will continue to be produced. They NEED to continue with a line of small cameras as well as a lone of bigger more serious cameras focused on IQ.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
If the RF mount aps-c camera is the followon to the 7DII, then it would need a highend EVF and highend AF. So, maybe the RF mount aps-c would be the testbed for the EVF and AF that will be used in the mirrorless equivalent to the IDXIII..
 

Arod820

Camera Operator
Sep 19, 2018
37
21
Miami
The fate of the 17-55 has often seemed to me a pretty good explanation of why we haven't seen a lot of higher end ef-s (and ef-m) glass. I think Canon learned their lesson on that one.
I bought the 17-55 for my C100 and it’s great for video, I’ve used it on my 7dmkii for photo and it’s kind of underwhelming. I’d rather travel with the Sigma Art Zooms.