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

[Michael Clark]

But there isn't any advantage to APS-C for an existing RF owner, so no reason to buy. R6 owner better off selling their R6 for an R5 rather than adding apsc - and R5 owners can crop and get the same effect while also being able to not crop for other purposes which obv apsc can't do

The reason mirrorless in general got popular is because it enabled small lenses with crop sensors. RF mount defeats much of the purpose of this since it needs to be compatible with larger diameter of FF lenses. Canon is basically giving the mirrorless portable market to Fuji etc if they go with RF apsc

Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

M50 has been hit by supply chain issues as well.
It would make sense for Canon to get the most expensive cameras out the door first.
However, they can't screw over the Costcos and Walmarts of the world that are selling M50. M200, and Rebel cameras.

M50 is being affected by the supply chain issues in 2021, but in 2020 that was not so much the case until very late in the year. All of the M bodies were also in the catalog all year, not just shipping in very limited quantities from late July (R5) and August (R6) through the end of December.

Costco and Walmart are not where Canon is selling the majority of EOS M bodies. The Pacific Rim is where it's at for the M series.

 

[Chaitanya]

If it's the smallest camera in the EOS R lineup it will not have dual card slots.

If it comes to replace XX0D/Rebel/Kiss line then yes no dual card slots and may end up similar to exisiting entry level EOS-M cameras.

 

[Ruined]

Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.

This is not a great argument, either. If you can afford the latest and greatest bodies and lenses, then the extra cost should not be much issue (and this aps-c RF is not going to be cheap if it's any good, by the way)

RF mount stuff is not a good deal right now. I just upgraded to two brand new full warranty 51MP 5DsR bodies for $3000 total, which allows me to buy another EF L-grade lens also and still come in below the R5 for all all that. If you have a price target to hit, this is smarter and functionally easier than buying a crop sensor for one of your two main bodies IMO. Even if another EF lens is never made again, the EF lens selection is still overall better than RF right now and will probably stay that way for at least a few years.

 

[Michael Clark]

I also have no idea why the heck a person would want a Canon aps-c when the RP is $999. Do people really want to save some cash so bad they downgrade to a massively inferior sensor? I am on a fixed income of $600 a month, and I won't touch an aps-c; I will buy a used full frame before I buy a brand new aps-c. I guess people who have never shot with full frame and always owned rebels are ok with the inferioprity not knowing better, but I think it is still madness for Canon to make one. A $700 aps-c RF REBEL vs. a $999 RP full frame, with the RP still having more features? GTFO, I will pay the extra $300 every time so I have a "big boy camera." I stopped using point-n-shoots and aps-c when I decided that my images matter.
People (Rebel users) seem to think that those cheap prime lenses and that turd-like L kit zoom will still be as useful when they get a full frame, but that is seldom the truth, since by the time most people pony up for full frame, the L lens bug has already bitten them hard. For many, even the chintzy 24-105 f4 becomes too cheap to put on a full frame. Besides, we all know the 24-105 is an L imposter and a marketing tool for camera peasants.
To be fair, I guess it makes sense Canon would go through the boring motions of making a standard subpar Rebel aps-c just so camera peasants can play with the genius RF lenses, but a pro-level 7d-ish camera seems stupid, absolutely stupid, given how small and inexpensive entry-level full frame bodies are now.

I own three 5-Series bodies (II,III, and IV) and one 7-Series body (II). I owned my first FF body before I owned the original 7D (which I donated to the photography department of a local high school some time ago). I already had a 5D Mark III when I bought the 7D Mark II because, at the time, it was the only non 1-Series body in Canon's catalog with flicker reduction that revolutionized shooting under flickering stadium/gym lighting.

They're different tools for different jobs. When I'm shooting sports under the lights or indoors the faster handling APS-C body lets me get away with using the 70-200/2.8 I already own (and also use on the FF bodies for other purposes) instead of needing to pay $6,100 for an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and still need a 70-200/2.8 on another body for when the action gets too close. I'm also using the 5D IV with a shorter zoom (24-70 or 24-105) or maybe even the 5D III with a 16-35 or 17-40 and the 5D IV with a 50mm or 85mm prime.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 L is legendary for taking any abuse one throws at it and just continuing to work and giving images that are more than good enough for low resolution newsprint or web distribution. That's something the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L could NOT do. Look at it funny while the barrel is extended and that lens needs a trip to CPS for realignment. If you are lucky, it will be worked on by one of the few technicians who actually know how to line one back up properly.

 

[Michael Clark]

I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.

It is a wonderful camera.

Especially for street photography...when mated to either the 22mm or 11-22mm IS lenses...the size and volume and weight and picture quality offered by either of these combinations is, IMHO, 'tied for first' at least...with any other system.

The ignorance on display in some of the posts here is at times startling...I sincerely hope it is not willful ignorance.

The only issue I have with the M6 Mark II is the lack of an eye level viewfinder without tying up the hot shoe. Coupled with the lack of PC port, there's no way to sync with off camera flash when using the EVF.

 

[Michael Clark]

But that would only make about a $100 difference in the price, not $1000. Once you have a camera that shoots at high frame rates, adding video is almost totally a firmware addition. You may need a bit more processing power and maybe a bigger FPGA, but $100 is an outside number.

Eh, maybe $150 with the memory shortage?

 

[Ruined]

There's not as much flexibility in what you suggest as having two bodies with two lenses at the same time.

I shoot with FF 5D Mark IV for most of the time. Often I also use a 5D Mark III with a supplemental lens.

But when shooting sports/action my primary body is the 7D Mark II with a 70-200/2.8 (instead of a FF with a $6K 300/2.8), and the 5D Mark IV plays the role of the "short" body with a 24-105 or 24-70. I'll usually shoot a couple of thousand frames with the 7D Mark II and maybe 100-200 with the 5D Mark IV. Thus I'm wearing out a $1,700 camera instead of a $3,500 camera (prices when they were new).

At only 5 fps, the 5Ds R and 5Ds are not fast enough handling for the way sports shooters are expected to work these days.

The fps limit doesn't apply to the 45mp R5 as it is just as fast as the 7D2. So again, a 45mp R5 would be a better choice than a crop RF. Also, if they make an RF version of the 7D2 it is not going to be cheap. The only thing that will be cheap is if they make a RF version of the Rebel/xxD, and if that is the case they will be sure to gimp it some way so that is undesirable to pros.

Re: 5DsR I don't find the fps limiting for my use cases. I had a 7D2 and found while the 10fps was neat 99.9% of the time it just resulted in more duplicates to go through I didn't need. While capability for 10fps is better, 5fps has not created any barrier for me - and that is probably the case for most people TBH. On the other hand, having two identical 51MP bodies makes lens selection and change coordination a lot easier, with the knowledge that either body can be the equivalent of a highly detailed FF or a long reach crop.

 

[Sporgon]

I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.

PBD is referring to cropping the FF to APS size.

 

[Michael Clark]

It might cost them more for the labor to remove the video features and redo menus to exclude video than just to leave it in, so the price might need to be higher.

Plus you'd have the duality of keeping two different models at adequate numbers in the supply pipeline and on the shelves of retailers. You wouldn't need 2n the numbers of a single model, but you would need n + x to maintain the same availability for two models as for one.

 

[Michael Clark]

Anyone who would want to use a lightweight camera with a lightweight lens?

The camera rotation caused by pressing the shutter button cannot be compensated with an in-lens IS.

Camera rotation is a problem mostly for those who hold their left hand over the lens like a local TV news videographer and support most of the weight of the camera with their right hand. Not so much for those who properly support the camera's weight with the left hand firmly underneath the lens and the left elbow tucked against their left rib cage and don't need to use a death grip with their right hand.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think the problem with this theory is that a "proper" successor to the 7D would have essentially all the features of an R5 except FF and maybe the 8k. That would make it a $3500 camera and I suspect the 7D crowd would howl in dismay at that revelation and Canon understands that and therefore you have not seen and likely will not see a "proper" 7D replacement.

I suspect most of the 7D crowd would be happy with a modern 32 MP APS-Censor in an R5 quality body for $2,900. But it's more likely the R7 will be in an R6 quality body, now we're talking a tad less than $2,800. They might bitch a bit about it being so much more than the 7D Mark II, but the $1,799 intro price of the 7D Mark II in late 2014 had the same buying power then as $2046 does in 2021.

 

[Michael Clark]

If you ask me, Canon made two HUGE mistakes:

1) Giving the EF-M a smaller mount diameter than needed for a hypothetical (at that point) FF high-end camera, then

2) Giving the RF a 20mm film-to-flange instead of 18mm like the EF-M.

They clearly never thought any of this through.

They could have made the EF-M lens series the initial RF series lenses, just with a smaller image circle.

And they could have allowed the smaller-image-circle lenses to be used on FF sensors, but simply leave you most likely cropping. (I wouldn't quite be for auto-crop, as the circular image is quite a bit taller than the typical small-sensor frame. This would let you adjust the rotation/levelling of a shot without losing pixels, for instance, or recompose it as square or even tall-format again without losing pixels.)

Anyway if they had done the EF-M with a wide mount, then we wouldn't have any talk today about replacing this entire, very popular and still quite new system, with another small-sensor outfit based on 20mm film-flange.

Really, this subject makes me almost angry at how stupid they are.

It may or may not have been a serious mistake to do so, but I think they knew exactly what they were doing when they made the two mounts incompatible.

 

[Michael Clark]

Wouldn't bother this member of the 7D crowd if it's a really great camera as it's much cheaper to buy medium length telephoto lenses (e.g. EF100-400 ii and RF100-500) and and a crop camera than FF with the super telephoto lenses such as EF600 f/4 or RF600f/4
If Canon make a cropped version of the R3 and price it about the same as an R5 I'd buy it and so would many others in the 7D crowd I suspect.
My 7Dii was a bargain camera but that doesn't mean I bought it cause I couldn't afford FF
Also Canon could easily just fit the 32.5 mp sensor from the 90D into an R6 and sell it for say $2000 USD but I'd rather they built a baby R3 with a 30-35mp version of it's stacked sensor and charged a bit more as it would be the best possible birding camera.

This.

I already had multiple FF bodies when I bought the 7D Mark II.

I didn't buy the 7D Mark II because it was cheaper than buying another 5D Mark III at the time.

I bought it because I already owned an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the reach of the 20 MP APS-C sensor meant I didn't need to spend $6,100 on an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II to get the same number of pixels on target with a 22 MP 5D Mark III.

That, and I wanted to see what the buzz about flicker reduction under flickering stadium/gym lights was all about. It's revolutionary for that use case.

 

[Michael Clark]

Oh yes, I see, you are so right, such iron-clad logic sales are good therefore the idea of making incompatible product lines was CLEARLY SO CLEVER.

I hope you're a professional photographer, because reasoning that weak would make you bad at practically any other line of work.

Project much?

 

[Michael Clark]

Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.

But not all 7D II users are shooting birds with a single body in daylight.

Many of us are shooting night/indoor sports with multiple bodies. We're using the same 70-200/2.8 we use for other purposes on our FF bodies with the 7D Mark II for sports to save the need of buying a $$$$$ 300/2.8 and another FF body to hold the 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets too close.

 

[Michael Clark]

Your parallel isn't a great one because there's all sorts of huge reasons why Ram pickup tires on a smart would require total redesign of the Smart, and compromise it severely.

In contrast what compromise is my suggestion entailing? Would a few EF-M lenses have had to be a bit wider at the base than the lens barrel? Would any M bodies be forced to be taller? And if so would that compromise the M system to the point it just wouldn't be attractive any more? Honest questions, I haven't checked the exact specs.

ALL EOS EF-M lenses are 61mm in diameter give or take 0.5mm.
ALL EOS EF-M lenses are the same diameter all the way from the mount to the front of the lens.

As focal length increases, by necessity maximum possible aperture decreases due to the 61mm constraint.

Of course the outer diameter of the mount flange must be larger than the throat diameter, which is the size of the hole inside that ring.

The outer diameter of the camera mount rings for the EF and RF mounts with a throat diameter of 54mm is 65-66mm.
So yes, the both EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses would need to be a little larger to accommodate a 54mm throat diameter.

What you're totally missing is that the EOS-M system has never been about gearheads who own multiple cameras and upgrade constantly in Canon's marketing planning.

The EOS M system is squarely aimed at the consumer who owns a single camera with only 1-3 lenses and uses it for several years before even thinking about any possible improvement via another camera. The vast majority of EOS M buyers worldwide fit that profile.

 

[Michael Clark]

I made the comparison, because the primary drive behind the APS-c R discussion comes from enthusiasts using (primarily) the 7D II and a few using XXD bodies who want "extra reach" for long lenses and also don't want to pay the price for full frame. The 7D and the XXD bodies are full sized SLRs and as such can be used to swing a supertelephoto lens just as well as a FF body. The M bodies are comparatively tiny (i.e. Smart Car) and even though they will fit and drive the big EF lenses, they are hugely impractical for big lenses. I use my M5 with a Tamron 18-400 (which is very small for its FL) and that is about the upper limit of practicality. Even the R5 is marginally too small when attached to an 800L. I think Canon is perfectly aware of this reality, hence the R3, which is clearly big and strong enough to work well with big lenses. I don't think we know yet whether Canon will abandon the M line and move everything to the R mount, but one thing is certain, Canon is selling a LOT more M50s that Nikon is selling Z50s so my sense is that the M line will be around for quite some time. When you are paying $12-15k for lenses, arguing over $1 or 2k for the camera to use them makes little sense to me.

Again, almost all 7D Mark II users I know (admittedly a much smaller sample size than the numbers Canon has) also own FF bodies. It's different tools for different jobs.

The difference in cost is not between the FF and APS-C bodies, it is the difference in cost of using a $2K 70-200/2.8 that we already own with a high density APS-C sensor vs. the cost of using a $6K 300/2.8 lens that we don't own with a lower density FF sensor.

At the time the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in 2014 , the 5D Mark III was 22 MP, which crops to only 7.8 MP at APS-C dimensions. Even the 30 MP 5D Mark IV introduced in 2016 only crops to 11.7MP. The 45MP R5 of 2020 crops to 17 MP. That's getting close to the 2014 7D Mark II, but it is a far cry from the 2019 32MP D90/M6 Mark II sensor that has the same density as an 82 MP FF sensor.

When you can use a $2K lens you already own with an APS-C sports body instead of needing a $6K+ lens you don't own, APS-C starts to make a LOT of sense for those shooting sports/action in light limited situations.

 

[Michael Clark]

Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.



> People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.

You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.

For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.

If all people are dying to buy another lens, why has Canon only sold 1.4 EOS lenses for each EOS body they've sold over the past 34 years?

The vast majority of DSLR/MILC buyers buy one lens with the camera and that's it. Period.

The 0.4 lenses per 1 body have all been bought by a very small number of us that have bought 3-4 lenses (bought new) for each body we've bought new. Used purchases and sales make no difference whatsoever to Canon.

 

[Ruined]

You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.

For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.

If all people are dying to buy another lens, why has Canon only sold 1.4 EOS lenses for each EOS body they've sold over the past 34 years?

The vast majority of DSLR/MILC buyers buy one lens with the camera and that's it. Period.

The 0.4 lenses per 1 body have all been bought by a very small number of us that have bought 3-4 lenses (bought new) for each body we've bought new. Used purchases and sales make no difference whatsoever to Canon.

There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant

Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.

But now people are upgrading from an excellent smartphone camera, not a point and shoot. And, now there are systems that are going to be a lot cheaper than RF while also having much smaller lenses since the RF mount needs to accommodate FF lenses. These smaller systems are more attractive to people used to carrying a tiny phone around as their camera.

If they are educated on the alternatives, most of the people who bought a Rebel will likely *not* elect to buy an RF APS-C as there will be other smaller and cheaper aps-c and m43 options that have that same "pro" upgrade over their smartphone

Small, light, and cheap is what made mirrorless take off in general. The RF mount by being stuck with accommodating full frame lenses will likely always be beat in all three of these categories by competitors, it's simple physics from the larger mount.