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

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
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.
Your reply is very restrained considering the brutality of my answer. I don't know why I was so mean.

My m3, m5, and m6, as well as my gx5, were all great cameras for street photography, and I forget how much I liked them. I loved them all, being a waist shooter fan, because most had movable rear displays, which full frame didn't have at that time. My sigma quattro dp2 aps-c was cool too, a very unique looking camera with unique images.
Most street shooters supposedly prefer 35mm lens shot at f8, although I am a different type of street shooter: I prefer wide open fast lenses in 85mm for street work, and I prefer action isolation and narrow DoF.
I also notice that my RP has a build like a Rebel instead of a 6D, and it is already bent out of shape from heavy street use. So I can also see why some folks would buy a 7D with a magnesium metal body. My full frames were always tanks. I also remember times I considered an SL3 because I am addicted to miniature things, and that camera is tiny.
So ultimately I can see at least a FEW reasons APS-C could still be bought and it make sense.
Thank you for replying, and reminding me.
As for a 24-105, I would use one if it came my way, but I just can't take it seriously. My best friend is still using a 5D Classic and 24-105 v1, so maybe that is why I am so scornful of the lens. Her work could be so much better if she would upgrade at least that body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,429
5,654
Lets see the 5D III and IV vs. 7D Mark II comparisons. That's where I live.

1-Series seem to always clean up better at high ISO.
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.

1355969C-D5EB-4D20-98D7-F0B781695977.jpeg
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,521
3,803
And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.
Did they, though? Both Canon and Nikon introduced autofocus lenses in the late 1980s, and Canon became the ILC market leader in 2004. So, who led the market in the 'decade or two' after the introduction of Nikon's sucky autofocus? Gosh, it was Nikon. #factsbeatopinions

In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount.
"The camera's size, image quality, advanced video capabilities and the versatility of Canon's full lineup of lenses make the EOS M another great option to help our customers record and capture their creative vision," said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A. Canon lists size first. As for noticeably bigger or bulkier, we'll get to that below.

Please tell me which APS-C cameras or EF-S lens would sell better if Canon had made EF-S lenses compatible with FF cameras? You can't, nor can I tell you which cameras or lenses would have sold less well if they were a bit (or more than a bit) bigger. But the whole woulda-shoulda-coulda speculation is irrelevant. Canon designed the M mount the way they did, and the M line became a global sales leader.

You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?

...and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all.
Gosh, your math is sure selective! Your ability to ignore established facts and your own previous statements is really quite impressive.

You're suggesting that a 7mm greater throat diameter can be accommodated by a 4mm increase in height. How would that work? By eliminating the already minimal space above/below the mount so the mount goes right to the edge of the camera? Maybe possible, but unlikely. And the greater vertical height would enable them to make the camera shallower? Golly gee, you seem to have forgotten that you also wanted the 20mm RF flange focal distance instead 18mm of the EF-M...so it wouldn't be shallower (unless you conveniently ignore your prior statements).

Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
Evidently you don't understand what throat diameter means. Let's try an anatomical analogy – if your throat was the same diameter as your neck, you could spew a lot more BS from your head.

The throat is the inner diameter of the lens mount, not the diameter of the full mount.
Screen Shot 2021-06-14 at 4.39.38 PM.png

The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is...60.7mm, essentially diameter of all the EF-M lenses (they are all flush with the edge of the thin black ring around the silver mounting surface, which is the place the rubber ring on weather-sealed lenses actually seals on FF cameras). The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length. That's a far cry from 'wouldn't be any bigger at all', isn't it? #factsbeatopinions

  • Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.
If only you knew how to work with them properly, but evidently you don't. Sad.

YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.

In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.
Did you forget that EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs? They had two systems of lenses, and the EF-S lens list comprises a full system of ultrawide to telephoto zooms with a couple of primes and a macro lens. Oh my goodness, that list sounds a whole lot like the EF-M lens list, doesn't it? But sure, Canon didn't think about that at all, either, right? :rolleyes:

Because if they had, you might be tempted to believe that that Canon's data suggest APS-C users mostly stay APS-C users, and those relative few who upgrade to FF end up changing out most or all of their lenses, meaning mount compatibility is not very important.

Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:
  • When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
  • In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
  • R comes out, with its initial 3-4 lenses... but it turns out, hey presto, another 4 lenses long used by M shooters work full-image on the R! And all the small-sensor ones do too! And if you choose to use those with the small image circle, then you can shoot now and tweak framing later. Take any shot and make it a vertical shot. Or make it square or 2:3 or 9:16 or 4:3 without wasting pixels. Or rotate it a few degrees to straighten up the angles without having to throw away pixels. The result is that an 18-55 zoom on the M works on the R and gives you the same MP as the typical M body and same "reach", when that's convenient for you. And when not, then use big-boy full-frame lenses.
  • Meanwhile put any of your big-boy full-frame lenses on your M body. Maybe you're backpacking but want that pro-quality macro, or what have you.
Just to be clear, you're saying:
  • Bigger bodies, and >25% bigger lenses, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
  • Making lots of prime lenses with big image circles, meaning not just 25% larger but substantially heavier, and aimed at a target market that has a strong preference for zooms over primes, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
  • When the R came out, a major target market was current owners of EOS M cameras, as opposed to current DSLR owners. (Would love to see you data to support that claim, although we both know you don't have it, but as I keep saying, Canon does.)
  • Using RF lenses on an APS-C camera is a major advantage, even though cropping negates much of the optical advantages those lenses provide, or what have you.
Quite frankly, none of that even remotely sounds smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
491
454
You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.
Actually in America speak, we would call 4mm 5/32nds of an inch (almost dead on the money).
And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.

In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount. But please stop just ignoring what I explained now several times and continue citing the false example of Canon as a company that retained a mount and paid a price. (That would be a parallel if Canon, instead of making the EF-M the size of the RF mount, instead continued using the inappropriate EF-M mount for the R series bodies. They'd have a bad electronic bus and small mounting aperture, both of which would cripple the system.)



OK, that was pretty funny :-D


  • Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.

You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?


YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.

In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.

Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:

  • When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
  • In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
  • R comes out, with its initial 3-4 lenses... but it turns out, hey presto, another 4 lenses long used by M shooters work full-image on the R! And all the small-sensor ones do too! And if you choose to use those with the small image circle, then you can shoot now and tweak framing later. Take any shot and make it a vertical shot. Or make it square or 2:3 or 9:16 or 4:3 without wasting pixels. Or rotate it a few degrees to straighten up the angles without having to throw away pixels. The result is that an 18-55 zoom on the M works on the R and gives you the same MP as the typical M body and same "reach", when that's convenient for you. And when not, then use big-boy full-frame lenses.
  • Meanwhile put any of your big-boy full-frame lenses on your M body. Maybe you're backpacking but want that pro-quality macro, or what have you.


Right, and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all. Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
The huge fallacy with your whole argument is based on assumptions from what we know today rather than looking at the actual history. When the M was introduced (July 2012), the top of Sony's mirrorless line was the Nex3 and Sony had NO FF cameras in either the Nex line or the Alpha line. The A99 (not mirrorless) didn't come out until Sept of 2012 and the A7 (Sony's first FF mirrorless wasn't released until Oct 2013. At that time, the sensor technology wasn't fast enough to provide an EVF experience that was competitive with SLRs. Canon did not Release the RF mount until they thought they were at least close to making a FF mirrorless practical and it really wasn't until the R5/R6 came out that the speed was there to actually make a FF mirrorless better than an SLR. In 2012, it wasn't clear that mirrorless would ever overtake SLRs and Canon certainly wasn't going to trash their SLR business until they knew for certain that they had something better.

Using hindsight to judge anyone's previous foresight is a game anyone can play, but it proves nothing unless you can clearly show that the one making the "faulty" decision actually had the data that you have looking backward and that is almost never the case. There is also the known fact that for every ILC sold, there are 1.4 lenses sold. That means that way less than half of camera buyers ever get an extra lens (when you take into account that some of us have many lenses). I think it is fair to assume that APS-c owners buy even less lenses, which is to say that the vast majority of EF-s and M owners never go beyond the kit lens. With that in mind, I would ask what is the point of your argument if it doesn't matter to the vast majority of camera owners?
 
Last edited:

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
491
454
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.

View attachment 198317

Funny how system MTF always comes back to bite the smaller formats in the behind even if the sensor noise performance is equal. That is the price to pay for that supposed extra "reach". With the right lenses (a very short list) and enough light, the extra reach is there, but statistically not as often as APS-c and u4/3 aficionados would like to believe.
 
Mar 15, 2018
82
99
United States
If there's an APS-C RF camera, at least we'll have a use for all our EF-S lenses, with an adapter. Unless Canon cripples EF-S lenses on the RF crop bodies, which I wouldn't put past them. But yeah, you'd think replicating the messy EF-S bodies/glass situation would be the last thing on Canon's mind. This is not the 2000s-2010s. Sales of bodies are still dropping hard. If they start dumping RF-S bodies into the market again, year after year, fragmenting the product line with minor tweaks, T8i/80D/77D... ugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fletchahh

EduPortas

EOS 90D
Jul 1, 2015
113
57
Most Canon M users don't think about all of this stuff. They do a little research, buy a camera and a couple of lenses, and then use them for at least four or five years before the stick their heads up to see what newer stuff is out there. They're not camera gearheads.

Yep. All the more reason to cut them from the balance sheet. They are not a long term proposition.

Practically every other camera maker, save for Canon, has already taken that step.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SUNDOG04

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
This may be controversial, but who cares about IBIS for photos? The high reach lenses have amazing optical IS systems. And other manufs probably have their IBIS more refined by this point than Canon

Um, me? There isn't a lens in the world that can do 8 stops of IS, but some of the RF ones can on the IBIS bodies (whether the lens has IS or not). As for others being 'more refined' - everything I've heard suggests Canon's system is just as good, if not better (aside from the lack of pixel shift for high res stills).
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
That's exactly what happened to me...

After more than 10 years apsc I bought my first fullframe camera and guess what? I sold all my FULLFRAME lenses except 50mm F1.4 and 14mm F2.8 Samyang. Both not the greatest lenses but I get nothing for them on the refurbished market so I kept them. I don't like them anymore...

As an apsc shooter my only apsc lense was the 18-55mm kit lense.
And I thought at that time as a teenager I will only buy fullframe lenses because later I want to upgrade. The only problem was, that as a apsc shooter you won't invest good money for extraordinary lenses. You just buy cheap and old stuff for a few hundred bucks which in my opinion is already a lot for an apsc shooter. I think most of them stick with their kit lense.
So now I have really good lenses because I understood that my cheap old fullframe lenses won't make me happy anymore.
Would I have bought this lenses for my apsc cameras?
No way!

Anyone had a similar experience?
I went from 7D with EF24-105mm/f4 to 5Diii/5Div to R5 and I still have and use the same EF24-105mm.
My second lens was a second hand EF-s 10-22mm which I used a lot but I upgraded to 5Diii with EF16-35mm/4 under an insurance claim when I accidentally drowned the 7D/EFs10-22mm. It is now my most-used lens.
4th lens was a EF70-200m/2.8 IS ii which I had for a long time as I never thought I needed to upgrade.... until the RF70-200mm came along last year and I got 20% off pricing.
My EF8-15mm and EF100/2.8 macro were second hand
My 5Div was second hand bought and sold at the same price after 2 years
Everyone has a different story to tell but mine was from APS-C to pre-ordering the R5 last year
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Chaitanya

EOS R
Jun 27, 2013
1,456
645
35
Pune
Wouldn't they use the 180mm macro on a full frame sensor if they need that equivalent focal length?
Depends on what they are shooting for herping 90/100/105mm are extremely popular, 180mm Macro are used for some dangerous snakes and for butterflies but on APS-C cameras. Around 5-6% of herpers I know shoot on FF cameras with rest all on crop sensor.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.
Not sure that is correct. I am also assuming that you mean the western Pacific rim as the US west coast is also on the Pacific Ocean.
English is the second language of most non-english speakers globally as well as the pacific rim (taking out mandarin vs local dialects). I have lived and worked in Asia/Australia for decades in corporate roles and communicating in English is normal. Noting I am not saying fluent/native level English though.
They may not participate in English language forums such as canon rumors though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
7D has never cost as much as the 5D.
It usually does cost around the 6D.
I have also not seen people asking for 8K video.
The 7D series were a unicorn from a marketing perspective. Relatively cheap, weather sealed, dual cards, borrowed AF system from the 1D series. Today this is the R6 in full frame although the 7D probably had better weather sealing. They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D.
That great value (and extra reach/pixel density) was very attractive
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
491
454
If there's an APS-C RF camera, at least we'll have a use for all our EF-S lenses, with an adapter. Unless Canon cripples EF-S lenses on the RF crop bodies, which I wouldn't put past them. But yeah, you'd think replicating the messy EF-S bodies/glass situation would be the last thing on Canon's mind. This is not the 2000s-2010s. Sales of bodies are still dropping hard. If they start dumping RF-S bodies into the market again, year after year, fragmenting the product line with minor tweaks, T8i/80D/77D... ugh.
All your EF-S lenses already work just fine on an R5 and AFAIK on all FF R cameras. Pop an EF-s lens on an R5 and it automatically switches to crop mode. 17.5 MP with the new AA filter is about as good as 20MP with a conventional filter, so the result is decent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: victorshikhman

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
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.
Assuming that all the controls are still there. The Sigma fp is an example of how small a body can be compared to the mount size. Whether you consider the lack of controls to be a M6ii replacement is the question
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
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.
Agreed....
The M eco-system is all about affordable and small size. ASP-C RF mount cannot replicate this without a range of cheap/small RF lenses which are nowhere to be found but we all wish that they were there.
The ef40mm pancake is one of the smallest EF lenses but adapted means doubling the length on RF mount and doubles the cost if the R mount adapter is included. Surely a small/cheap RF lens wouldn't be too hard for Canon to release.

Note that RP can also adapt EF-s for even cheaper lens options
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
An aggressively priced RP would be perfect as a second body for R5/6 users and great introduction for new users to RF system even using EF-s lenses

Hard to imagine that a ASP-C sensor in RF mount would be smaller than a RPii though unless there are less controls like the Sigma fp or maybe M200. This would be a completely different market segment than the current 7D series.

The rumour has the ASP-C option as more expensive and smaller than the RPii. The APS-C sensor should be cheaper than FF just on silicon costs assuming that both are new sensors but why more expensive than the RPii? Would that model appeal to new users? Surely the RPii would be the introduction model. I guess that reach would be important for macro or cheaper super tele lenses but the res tof the features would let down the action shooters.

The M ecosystem is all about affordable and small system. Currently the RP body is 50% more than the M50 + kit lens or 10% more than the M6ii + kit lens not to mention the cost of a R mount adapter and EF-s lens so completely different segment for price and size

A true 7D replacement would be a R6 with APS-C sensor (dual card, weather sealing, great AF). Recycling the 32mp APS-C sensor is an option but AF would suffer and assuming that video wasn't a key feature. The 1Diii and R6 share sensors so some volume is there. The real question that only Canon can answer is whether a new APS-C sensor body for action would sell well and at what price.
 

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
The throat is the inner diameter of the lens mount, not the diameter of the full mount.
View attachment 198318
The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is...60.7mm, essentially diameter of all the EF-M lenses (they are all flush with the edge of the thin black ring around the silver mounting surface, which is the place the rubber ring on weather-sealed lenses actually seals on FF cameras). The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length. That's a far cry from 'wouldn't be any bigger at all', isn't it? #factsbeatopinions

Just theoretically - what if Canon would create something like RS lens? Still the same mount diameter, but then reduced to a thinner barrel, to just cover the size of an APS-C sensor? I know that the lens would look a bit weird, but could something like that actually work?
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
491
454
Just theoretically - what if Canon would create something like RS lens? Still the same mount diameter, but then reduced to a thinner barrel, to just cover the size of an APS-C sensor? I know that the lens would look a bit weird, but could something like that actually work?
Of course it would work, but like the Nikon DX 16-50 kit lens for the Z50 it would be ugly and esthetics do matter. The Canon M cameras are esthetically very pleasing and believe it or not, that is one of the reasons they sell well.