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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Yeah, that Kalifornian can be hard to understand.

Ok. They live on the western half of the pacific Rim (which is in the Eastern Hemisphere, unlike the Eastern Pacific Rim, which is in the Western Hemisphere).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Funny, the M50 has consistently been showing up 3 or 4 times in the top 10 on Amazon US. Makes it look like the best selling camera in America. But, yes Americans speak American, not English .

Amazon is where non-gearheads buy cameras. Just because a camera is in the top 10 on amazon in the U.S. does not always mean it is in the top ten among all cameras sold in the U.S. But even if it is (and it may well be), the fact that it is in the top 10 cameras in the U.S. does not eliminate the possibility that in Eastern Asia it sells far more units as the #1 selling camera in that part of the world.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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?

How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is intentional?

Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story.

Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.

View attachment 198317

Most of the difference is in chrominance noise, which is fairly easy to clean up without affecting fine detail too much. I don't see much difference at all in luminance noise. The difference in resolution is, of course due to 20 MP vs. 30 MP and the increased magnification ratio of the smaller sensor (assuming both were shot at the same distance with the same lens at the same focal length). As I'm sure you well know, the reason larger formats can be sharper than smaller formats with lenses of the same resolution is because they require fewer lp/mm from the lens to get to the same number of lp/ih.

The other issue I deal with when shooting at ISO 6400 is that the white jerseys (one team always wears white jerseys in the U.S. for U.S. football, basketball, and baseball) clip one stop sooner than when shooting at ISO 3200. So to keep from clipping the jerseys I need to underexpose an additional stop at ISO 6400 and then suffer the additional noise when raising the shadows and mids in raw development.

As it is, I shoot at ISO 3200 and expose with the white jerseys just on the verge of clipping (in the raw file - the blinkys are all over the frame in the LCD preview image if they are enabled), then pull the highlights back a tad as I boost exposure about one-half stop, maybe pull up the shadows another one-third stop or so for poorly lit areas of the field and then crush the blacks up to a level to get the dark sky or areas outside the end of the stadium solid black when developing the raw files. (I'm not a fast turnaround PJ so I don't need to shoot JPEG, which pretty much requires letting the highlights blow for the white jerseys with most cameras. That's where the 1-Series would really come in handy by allowing highlight and shadow control in camera in addition to the overall contrast setting. But I don't generate enough revenue to justify the expense of 1-Series cameras.)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Dragon, you said (inside the quote you were responding to):

"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."

It all depends on the planned usage of the end product. If the images are being published at lower resolution for web, or even for small prints, the MTF loss is not as significant. The extra reach is nice to allow cropping before downsizing for web. Yes, there is the resolution penalty due to the increased enlargement ratio. But it's an acceptable tradeoff for the difference between generating positive revenue or losing a little based on the cost of each system.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

There are still a lot more camera buyers worldwide that fit the EOS M profile than there are gearheads like those of us here on Canon Rumors. North America and Western Europe have a lot more potential customers with large discretionary income compared to the rest of the world.

Canon will continue to sell EOS M cameras to those buyers as long as they keep buying enough of them for Canon to make a profit on the R&D they have already spent to develop the EOS M system. A few new models to keep interest up will allow them to sell already existing lenses for a few more years until smartphones, even the more affordable models that those in the non-affluent parts of the world tend to use, eventually eliminates that market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

You are correct that many in that part of the world are functional in conversational English, though your perception may or may not be skewed if a larger percentage of the folks there who deal with international visitors are functional in English than the overall population. But even those folks don't show up much on the English language photography gearheads forums, do they?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

The 7D series never had a better AF system than the then current 5-Series camera. Both the 7D and the 5D Mark II were equally inconsistent from shot-to-shot. Just ask Roger Cicala.

1623746912350.png

The first generation of the 7D had a horrible 19-point AF system! It was nothing like the 1D Mark IV AF system. It was nicely configurable, so it "felt" pro-level when you were using it. But it was also notoriously inconsistent from shot to shot in burst mode when tracking moving subjects. When you sat down and actually started culling images, you were almost always disappointed that the shot that caught the peak action was always slightly front or rear focused. Out of ten frames in a high speed burst, you would have one, two, or three that were perfectly on target, five, six, or seven that were just slightly off (equally distributed between front and rear focused) and one or two that were totally out of focus.

When the 7D mark II came out in 2014 with a near 1-Series level AF system, the 5D Mark III of 2012 already had a 1-Series level AF system. The PDAF array hardware was the same part number for the 1D X and the 5D Mark II. Ditto for the 1D X Mark II and the 5D Mark IV in 2016. The differences between the 1-Series and 5-Series in terms of AF performance at that point were in software/firmware.
 

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
Hi everyone, question: A friend of mine got the R6 and he wanted to sell his EF-S lens (a good one by all means), before he did so I asked him to test a thing, he put the camera on "crop sensor) and all of a sudden the FF sensor became APS-C sensor and.. So all Canon need to do is to have RP mark2 which will be affordable, so why there is a need for APS-C sensor at all?
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,069
839
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
It is before my time but people tell me that Nikon had the better autofocus back then,
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,069
839
Hi everyone, question: A friend of mine got the R6 and he wanted to sell his EF-S lens (a good one by all means), before he did so I asked him to test a thing, he put the camera on "crop sensor) and all of a sudden the FF sensor became APS-C sensor and.. So all Canon need to do is to have RP mark2 which will be affordable, so why there is a need for APS-C sensor at all?
The RP is twice as expensive as the cheapest Canon mirrorless APS-C camera and that is kind of an unnecessary hassle.
Part of the appeal of Canon is that these cameras are easy for beginners to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,255
How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is intentional?

Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story.

Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.
Some people seem to believe that any decision which differs from the one they would have made must have been either misguided or not thought out at all. That same type of person seems to have such an incontrovertible belief in their own innate rightness that they are unable to admit when they’re wrong. So the answer to your question, “How hard is it to understand?,” is most likely that it’s impossible. #hubris
 

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
How hard is it to understand that the incompatibility between the EOS M/EF-M system and the EOS R /RF system is intentional?

Canon decided they wanted it that way. Period. End of Story.

Look at Canon's history for the past several decades. Every major decision they've made of such importance has been carefully calculated and, in the long run, turned out to be the one that maximized their rate of return on investment.

Buying a popcorn and preparing a chair to watch you explain the demise of an EOS-M system, once Canon announces those rumoured 3 APS-C RF bodies :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

masterpix

EOS RP
Jun 29, 2016
293
205
The RP is twice as expensive as the cheapest Canon mirrorless APS-C camera and that is kind of an unnecessary hassle.
Part of the appeal of Canon is that these cameras are easy for beginners to use.
The RP is 999$ now in Amazon, which was the price of the Rebel when its digital version just came up. Therefore I suspect that time, the RP price will slowly drop, as the rebel line did. So not long into the future, the RP price will be about 500$ which is a nice price for entry level camera.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,436
2,305
Ok. They live on the western half of the pacific Rim (which is in the Eastern Hemisphere, unlike the Eastern Pacific Rim, which is in the Western Hemisphere).
Yeah one of those at-first-it-looks-like-a-paradox type things where the WEST Pacific is near China, which we reflexively regard as "east."
 

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
There are still a lot more camera buyers worldwide that fit the EOS M profile than there are gearheads like those of us here on Canon Rumors. North America and Western Europe have a lot more potential customers with large discretionary income compared to the rest of the world.

Canon will continue to sell EOS M cameras to those buyers as long as they keep buying enough of them for Canon to make a profit on the R&D they have already spent to develop the EOS M system. A few new models to keep interest up will allow them to sell already existing lenses for a few more years until smartphones, even the more affordable models that those in the non-affluent parts of the world tend to use, eventually eliminates that market.

EOS-M is done, no matter how much reasoning you come up with. And if you can't get the idea of what will inevitably happen in the Canon land sooner or later, then here's a bit of an inspiration from a competing camp:

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
493
Amazon is where non-gearheads buy cameras. Just because a camera is in the top 10 on amazon in the U.S. does not always mean it is in the top ten among all cameras sold in the U.S. But even if it is (and it may well be), the fact that it is in the top 10 cameras in the U.S. does not eliminate the possibility that in Eastern Asia it sells far more units as the #1 selling camera in that part of the world.
Actually, I said it was regularly in the top ten several times (as is in #2, #5, and #8 in different package configurations). My sense is that it is, and has been for some time the actual #1 seller on Amazon. BTW, for folks who don't live in cities with handy camera stores (about 75% of the population) Amazon and places like B&H are the only choices for both gearheads and non-gearheads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
You are correct that many in that part of the world are functional in conversational English, though your perception may or may not be skewed if a larger percentage of the folks there who deal with international visitors are functional in English than the overall population. But even those folks don't show up much on the English language photography gearheads forums, do they?
Not sure if you read my post but my final sentence was "They may not participate in English language forums such as canon rumors though."
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
943
790
www.flickr.com
The 7D series never had a better AF system than the then current 5-Series camera. Both the 7D and the 5D Mark II were equally inconsistent from shot-to-shot. Just ask Roger Cicala.

The first generation of the 7D had a horrible 19-point AF system! It was nothing like the 1D Mark IV AF system. It was nicely configurable, so it "felt" pro-level when you were using it. But it was also notoriously inconsistent from shot to shot in burst mode when tracking moving subjects. When you sat down and actually started culling images, you were almost always disappointed that the shot that caught the peak action was always slightly front or rear focused. Out of ten frames in a high speed burst, you would have one, two, or three that were perfectly on target, five, six, or seven that were just slightly off (equally distributed between front and rear focused) and one or two that were totally out of focus.

When the 7D mark II came out in 2014 with a near 1-Series level AF system, the 5D Mark III of 2012 already had a 1-Series level AF system. The PDAF array hardware was the same part number for the 1D X and the 5D Mark II. Ditto for the 1D X Mark II and the 5D Mark IV in 2016. The differences between the 1-Series and 5-Series in terms of AF performance at that point were in software/firmware.
I didn't say that the 7 series had the same AF system as the current 1D series at the time. My recollection... which could be completely incorrect was that the 7 series had the previous 1D's AF system.
At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.

With many of your posts, I get the impression that you are missing the point of mine or misreading them and are arguing semantics without actually adding to the conversation. This is an open forum and that is to be expected but needs to be pointed out.
Perhaps you can suggest where a replacement 7Diii with equivalent features would be priced within the RF eco-system.
 

Peter Bergh

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2020
32
20
Rebel T7 was Canon's best selling model at amazon in the U.S. The world is far larger than the U.S.
You are absolutely right that the US and the world are not the same. But, for luxury products like cameras, you cannot consider population alone; you must also consider purchasing power per person. (Few in, say, Chad can afford a camera.) That consideration makes the US a bit bigger in relation to the rest of the world, but still only a fraction of the entire world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark