After the EOS R3, Canon will introduce new “affordable” RF mount cameras [CR1]

[koenkooi]

I wonder how you’d meaningfully upgrade the RP ? I guess the obvious thing is fit an up to date sensor. The one in the RP is fine but you have to shoot in the traditional Canon way - don’t unnecessarily underexpose. I guess other upgrades would be frame rate, maybe add more specific eye detect focus.
I bought an RP at a good price and I have to say ergonomically it’s superb for an entry level camera. Still much prefer an OVF though.

I strongly suspect that better framerates and improved eye-AF come for free with a more modern sensor. Everything seems to point to the slow sensor readout being the bottleneck on the RP.

I sold my RP to get an R5, but I'd love to have something that size next to my R5 again. Just replacing the 6DII sensor with the R6 sensor would improve it a lot. When I compared the dragonfly photos I took with an RP and 1DXIII side by side, the 1DXIII pictures were all more detailed, despite having less megapixels.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The problem is that a M6 Mark II replacement in RF mount can never be that small as the M6 because of the bigger mount.

 

[jedy]

You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.

I think Canon has two other reasons to do that: focusing the resources to ONE mount in the near future for the higher end systems and sell more new RF lenses in an otherwise saturated market (the rare occurence of these simple EF to EOS RF adapters supports this idea IMO).
IMO EF mount will die soon, EF-M has its own niche and will stay longer, maybe much longer. M50 is a great little guy!

If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.

 

[Dragon]

The absence of the high res camera does make one wonder what the resolution of the R3 is going to be . And, to highlight the "accuracy" of CR1, CR completely missed boat on the R3 until it was announce. Pretty much the same with the R5, as I recall.

 

[jam05]

Sigh...I guess I'll be buying another M6 Mk II as a 'backup'.

I don't understand Canon's thinking here regarding small cameras and small lenses (EF-M ecosystem)--they're ceding that market to others.

I don't understand it at all.

That's OK...there's lots of things I don't understand (ask my wife of 37 years ).

I don't know what market region you live in, but the M50 and M6mk 2 dominate the small camera markets in most major regions by far. So much so that Canon has expanded its camera market share. Canon remains the big dog on the block. No other manufacturer is even close in camera share.

 

[samirj]

they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )

 

[jam05]

You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.

I think Canon has two other reasons to do that: focusing the resources to ONE mount in the near future for the higher end systems and sell more new RF lenses in an otherwise saturated market (the rare occurence of these simple EF to EOS RF adapters supports this idea IMO).
IMO EF mount will die soon, EF-M has its own niche and will stay longer, maybe much longer. M50 is a great little guy!

Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The main difference and problem is EF-M and options from other brands are a much smarter small sensor choice than RF APS-C if you know what you are doing

Pretty much nothing competes with M200, M50, and M6 Mark II at their price points.

 

[mb66energy]

The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that.

But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.

In my case it is the 70-200 f/4 I really liked on APS-C (EOS 20D) from the first day because it has a unique combination of features:

1. great focal length range from 110-320mm equiv
2. constant f/4
3. non-extending design (o.k. the RF doesn't have it now
4. good close focus

and there is no 100-300 f/4 lens for full frame yet ...
But I know this is a matter of personal choice!

 

[mb66energy]

If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.

It would always be a good idea to put everything into one camera but ... 24 MPix on APS-C is 24 x 1.6² or roughly 75 MPix and this will be expensive! Having two bodies means having a backup system.
But if price doesn't matter (maybe for to high res FF bodies) and tech is available I fully agree!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why couldn't Canon introduce two R-series APS-C cameras at the same time, with one being an affordable model and the other a higher-end, more "pro" oriented camera?

That would depend on what you mean by affordable.
There is not much point in a cheap RF APS-C camera before cheap lenses arrive.
People complained about the RP but owners were able to adapt EF lenses.
Rebel users can already do that to the M line.
M line users can't do that at all.
7D owners often use full-frame lenses so an R7 makes more sense.

 

[Czardoom]

I would certainly be interested in a crop R series camera. In the past year I've started doing Birds and BIF and tried a number of camera lens combinations. The main locations where I have been able to shoot keep me a fair distance from the birds, so I ultimately chose the Olympus 100-400mm lens to use on my E-m1 II, giving me the equivalent 200-800mm reach. The Canon 100-400 paired with an R6 I was able to use did not give me enough reach. The new RF 100-500 was a very impressive lens but beyond my budget (especially as I would need a new R series camera to go with it.) Tried an M6 II, but way too small for my taste when paired with any non-M lens.

I know lots of folks on forums don't get the appeal of an APS-C R camera. It's about reach. You don't need special "crop R" lenses. It's about reach.

 

[mb66energy]

Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.

Yes. But there is a way to migrate and I have done it: I use mostly EF(-S) lenses for my two M50s with the adapter because

1. they fit on the RP
2. they fit on my 600Ds for timelapse recordings
3. they have real MF/AF switches
4. they have a real focus ring with scales on it
5. the adapter with its foot is a well balanced solution to fit "larger" lenses like EF 100 2.0 or the 100mm macro on these tiny bodies

And I will tell you why I like mirrorless: The reliable AF is a vast improvement at least for me because AF points on SLRs were literally never where I needed them. And I like the EVF for shooting video in some situations.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.

I agree but people whine so much about crop.
"I paid for a full-frame camera. Why should I have to crop to get certain features? Waah!"

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's simply marketing for the investors: the board always has to impress the shareholders with the newest, greatest, most advanced product

Do investors even know the difference between APS-C and full-frame?
They seem to be mesmerized by colorful charts.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't know what market region you live in, but the M50 and M6mk 2 dominate the small camera markets in most major regions by far. So much so that Canon has expanded its camera market share. Canon remains the big dog on the block. No other manufacturer is even close in camera share.

Sony a6400 sells very well also.
People love to talk about Fuji in APS-C but they are nowhere close.
(At least Fuji has "medium format" to brag about.)

 

[EOS 4 Life]

they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )

I am not sure that Canon has a lot of incentive to make a cheaper version of one of their best-selling cameras.

 

[1D4]

Reading between the lines, it doesn’t appear that an APS-C RF mount camera will be the EOS 7D series replacement a lot of people are hoping for.

I refuse to believe this and await the R7 to back up and supplement my R5. Thanks.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

For me an affordable full frame camera with IBIS would be interesting. I do not care about a high frame rate at all. Three frames per second are okay for me. If there was such a camera for $1000, I would buy it and also buy the 800mm f/11 lens. Even APS-C combined with 800mm would be interesting. Imagine how much reach it will give you. Having IBIS and the option for a cheap 800mm lens are the only advantage I see in the mirrorless system. It would only be my second body though.

 

[Sporgon]

I thought I preferred an OVF until I got an R5. That body will make you forget OVF (and DSLR’s in general) very, very quickly…

Perhaps the answer is for you to lend me an R5 so I can find out ?