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

[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.

 

[Michael Clark]

Where did you get that?
I know DSLR sales are way down this year but I have not seen a breakdown by camera model.
Rebel T7 was Canon's best-selling camera before.

Rebel T7 was Canon's best selling model at amazon in the U.S. The world is far larger than the U.S.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Again, 5 fps is not remotely realistic when shooting sports in 2021.

Again, 50MP cropped to 19.5 MP is not realistic in 2021 when better 32 MP APS-C sensors already exist.

The biggest problem with the 90D is that the OVF AF system is not any better than the 80D was, and significantly worse than the 7D Mark II. The other problem is the slower, less durable shutter rated for only 120,000 actuations (compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 shutter rating) packaged in an overall less durable body.

The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.

 

[koenkooi]

[..] The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.

I read somewhere that Canon like to design the breaking point into the accessory to prevent damage to the hot shoe on the camera. My EVF-DC2 feels flimsy enough for me to believe that, but I wouldn't trust in it.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

So make up your mind. Is it the cheap 5Ds (which are all gone now, and have been for a while, by the way) or the $3,900 R5?

Either way you're still thinking that because something might be a better choice for you and your use cases that makes it a better choice for everyone. I'm not saying an R7 would be better for you. I'm saying it would be better for me and those who shoot the same things I shoot.

As we've already said, cropping the 45 MP R5 to APS-C only gives 17 MP at a time when a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists in Canon's catalog.

20 MP APS-C was exceptional when the 22 MP 5D Mark III was the highest resolution FF body in the catalog. But it's not 2014 any more.

And for the dozenth or so time, it's not the low cost of the 7D Mark II (which admittedly was very nice) that made it so attractive. It was not having to buy a $6,100 EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II instead of being able to use lenses I already have that makes it such a great solution.

As to the "identical body" thing: the 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II can all be set up to operate identically. Yes, there are some options one offers that the other do not. But the buttons are in the same places and there are enough of the same menu options in each of them to set up a very usable camera with the same options selected for all three. I'd expect that an R7 would be equally similar to the R6 and R5 in that respect.

 

[Ruined]

Again, 5 fps is not remotely realistic when shooting sports in 2021.

Again, 50MP cropped to 19.5 MP is not realistic in 2021 when better 32 MP APS-C sensors already exist.

The biggest problem with the 90D is that the OVF AF system is not any better than the 80D was, and significantly worse than the 7D Mark II. The other problem is the slower, less durable shutter rated for only 120,000 actuations (compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 shutter rating) packaged in an overall less durable body.

The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.

I am not sure why you think Canon is going to give you 32MP sensor (APS-C or not) in a mirrorless camera - with pro-level features no less - when the 20MP R6 is $2499 and Canon still has on tap the ability to upsell people on a more expensive R5, future R3, future R5s, or future R1 (all with cropping modes). Canon will always try to lure you to buy the more expensive option by sabotaging some element of the cheaper lines - so I would not be surprised if the first APS-C is more in line with the 7D2's sensor density and 90D's featureset (+mirrorless). You might say "but the 90D is already much higher in density than the 7D2!" Sure, but even the 6D2 is higher in density than the R6, and that didn't stop Canon from putting a lower MP sensor in the R6 years later for product differentiation purposes from the R5.