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

[neuroanatomist]

The EF-M barrel width, 60.9mm is bigger than the RF mount, 54mm, so no, I don't see why the lenses would be bigger.

If I'm overlooking something please fill me in.

You clearly don’t grasp the fact that the 54mm EF/RF ‘mount diameter’ is the throat diameter – the inner diameter, not the outer diameter that determines the barrel size at the base of the lens.

SwissFrank said:
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.

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

 

[SwissFrank]

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

Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.

Measure the minimum diameter of any EF-S lens. Do a little basic math. Are you suggesting that somehow making lenses larger in diameter than they optically need to be would also allow them to be shorter in length? LOL.

But it’s apparent that you can’t differentiate facts from assumptions, because you treat your own assumptions as facts.

Walking away from a conversation is much easier than admitting you are wrong.

 

[Dragon]

Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.

You are routinely done with anyone who questions your often erroneous presumptions. Sad but humorous.

 

[SwissFrank]

Are you suggesting that somehow making lenses larger in diameter than they optically need to be would also allow them to be shorter in length? LOL.

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.


How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

 

[Ozarker]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.


How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume.

LOL. Seriously? You specifically excerpt the following quote from my post:

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.

Then, you reply with, “Why would you make that assumption?,” and when called on your BS, claim you were referring to camera body volume?!? That’s pathetic. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong?

As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

Yes, lenses vary in diameter across their length. Show me a few examples of ‘regular’ lenses (i.e., not special purpose like macro probes) where the mount is the widest part of the lens, and the rest of the barrel is much narrower in diameter. As an example of what that would look like, this is the proximal part of the T2 camera adapter for my Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope with a T2-EF adapter on it.

Such lenses would certainly be unusual-looking with a strange aesthetic. I doubt a series of lenses like that would be attractive to a wide customer base.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that …

There was a 6-year gap between the introductions of the EOS M and EOS R lines. How would customers be shown anything about the future EOS R? Your proposal would have people waiting >6 years for the ‘future FF camera’ that would justify their odd-looking lenses. That’s ridiculous.

More importantly, your proposal is irrelevant. You are flailing around trying to justify your statements because Canon made a rational and logical decision with which you happen disagree.

How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

As I’ve already stated, there’s no way to know. What we do know is 1) Canon made small size a design priority for the EOS M line, 2) the EOS M line became the global best-selling MILC line, 3) the R series is selling very well, and 4) the M series continues to sell very well.

If those were not the case, your argument that Canon ‘gave no thought’ or ‘made a mistake’ in mount choices might be plausible. But the sales data are objective evidence of the logic behind Canon’s decision, and thus your repeated arguments against it and your sad attempts to defend them have become puerile.

…I'm done with you.

Even when you make a claim over which you have complete control, you prove that to be just as bogus as your other claims. Seems your willpower is just as weak as your logic.

 

[Michael Clark]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.


How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

1) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now need, nor will they need (or want) in the future a 24/2, 25/2, 35/2, or 50/1.8 for a full frame body.

2) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now plan to, nor do they see themselves ever migrating to full frame in the future.

3) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now have full frame lenses they want to mount on their EOS M bodies, nor will they ever.

4) The vast majority of EOS M owners buy a camera and whatever lenses they plan to use with it over the life cycle of the camera at the same time. They're not worried at all about whether the 1-3 lenses they bought with the EOS M will fit their next camera five years or more from now when they might think about buying another camera.

5) The vast majority of EOS M owners didn't care when Canon would introduce their first mirrorless FF cameras at the time they bought their EOS M cameras, because they're not the type of buyers that would have considered themselves ever buying a FF camera. Not to mention that the first R body didn't appear until six years after the EOS M system was introduced.

6) The vast majority of EOS M owners never remotely considered if the 1-3 EF-M lenses they bought with their EOS-M camera would work on FF cameras they don't see themselves ever buying.

"How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages?"

Quite likely a significantly large percentage of those who have actually bought EOS M cameras because they are lightweight, compact, and relatively inexpensive.

"How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?"

Virtually none who are among the buyers for whom Canon created the EOS M series.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN

1. Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
2. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
3. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
4. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit White
5. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Sliver
6. Nikon D5600 Double Zoom Kit
7. Nikon D3500 Double Zoom Kit
8. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit Black
9. Canon EOS Kiss X10i Double Zoom Kit
10. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White

Pretty clear that DSLRs are not dead – one of them tops the list (Kiss X10 = 250D = SL3), and 4 of the top 10 ILCs are DSLRs (consistent with global ILC market share).

There are no FF ILCs in the top 10, only APS-C. Six of the top 10 best-sellers are Canon products (entirely consistent with their continued market leadership, and entirely inconsistent with poor decision making or a lack of strategy).

Every camera in the top 10 was sold with two zoom lenses, which suggests that 1) most buyers are not upgrading from a prior model, 2) they are probably getting the two lens kit because that's all the lenses they'll ever buy. As @Michael Clark states, that's very consistent with the entry-level market segment – people who buy an APS-C body and 1-2 lenses with it, and that represents their total investment unless their camera breaks in a few years, in which case they buy another entry level body with the 'new' kit lens(es).

The fraction of entry-level APS-C buyers who upgrade to FF is very small, and of those who do having 'an upgrade path' that allows them to use their APS-C lenses on a new FF body is not a significant concern. Certainly it's not a significant concern for Canon, because they did not offer that upgrade path for EF-S or EF-M lenses.

 

[Dragon]

Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN

1. Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
2. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
3. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
4. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit White
5. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Sliver
6. Nikon D5600 Double Zoom Kit
7. Nikon D3500 Double Zoom Kit
8. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit Black
9. Canon EOS Kiss X10i Double Zoom Kit
10. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White

Pretty clear that DSLRs are not dead – one of them tops the list (Kiss X10 = 250D = SL3), and 4 of the top 10 ILCs are DSLRs (consistent with global ILC market share).

There are no FF ILCs in the top 10, only APS-C. Six of the top 10 best-sellers are Canon products (entirely consistent with their continued market leadership, and entirely inconsistent with poor decision making or a lack of strategy).

Every camera in the top 10 was sold with two zoom lenses, which suggests that 1) most buyers are not upgrading from a prior model, 2) they are probably getting the two lens kit because that's all the lenses they'll ever buy. As @Michael Clark states, that's very consistent with the entry-level market segment – people who buy an APS-C body and 1-2 lenses with it, and that represents their total investment unless their camera breaks in a few years, in which case they buy another entry level body with the 'new' kit lens(es).

The fraction of entry-level APS-C buyers who upgrade to FF is very small, and of those who do having 'an upgrade path' that allows them to use their APS-C lenses on a new FF body is not a significant concern. Certainly it's not a significant concern for Canon, because they did not offer that upgrade path for EF-S or EF-M lenses.

The M50 shows up 4 times in that top 10 list, likely making it the number one seller. A similar pattern shows up in the Amazon best seller list. The M50 is likely the best selling ILC in the world and we keep hearing people say Canon should trash the M line. Amazing how gearheads can get disconnected from reality.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The M50 shows up 4 times in that top 10 list, likely making it the number one seller. A similar pattern shows up in the Amazon best seller list. The M50 is likely the best selling ILC in the world and we keep hearing people say Canon should trash the M line. Amazing how gearheads can get disconnected from reality.

Two are the M50, two are the M50 MkII, but I get your point. The M series is probably still the global best-selling ILC line.

Some people here think their viewpoint is representative of a majority of camera buyers, which is just silly.

 

[bergstrom]

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

Put in the sensor door that was missing in the ROP to cut costs.

 

[No Longer Active]

I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.

They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….

If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.

I'm not sure what kinds of subjects you shoot, but I personally tend to shoot at the long to super long tele end for wildlife. For folks like me having an APS-C crop sensor reduces the Field of View giving us a boost on the Equivalent Focal Length (which when one combines what the lens delivers to the sensor and it captures IS the FoV). If one was to blow up the resultant images to the same size the subject will be larger in the frame - that's pretty beaten path stuff. However, the other factor is pixel density. If I was to reduce a FF sensor image to the same FoV as the APS-C one, the number of pixels would be reduced by a factor or about 2.56. So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant. Conversely, a 40MP ASP-C sensor (not unreasonable as the 90D had 34MP) would have the same pixel density as 102.4MP FF sensor. So for those of us who DO shoot at the very long end, there is a definite benefit.

Even if Canon came out with a R7 and kept the same lens mount, it would still work well. When the first digital EOS units came out, the EOS D30, D60, and 10D all had that arrangement, it was only from the 20D on that there was an APS-C lens mount. I actually own and still shoot with the first two of those bodies (for the fun and challenge of it) and they work really well with the EF lenses.

The image below is taken with the Canon EOS D30 (3MP) and the EF 17-40 USM, hand-held in available light.
View attachment 198939

 

[Ozarker]

I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.

They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….

If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.

Well, that's just not true. Before switching to FF, I went out and bought all the FF "L" lenses I wanted first. Shot them all on a 70D for several months before buying a 5D Mark III. You see, I wasn't sure I wanted FF at the time, but I did want the glass.

The 70D fit my hands ok. An M series camera would not be any fun for me. Far too tiny, and an ergonomic nightmare, for my taste. So, from my perspective, the M is a no-go if I am looking for a crop sensor camera.

I'd have no problem shooting fast high end lenses mounted on an ASP-c body.

 

[unfocused]

...So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant...
...The image below is taken with the Canon EOS D30 (3MP) and the EF 17-40 USM, hand-held in available light.
View attachment 198939

I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant.

It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable.

I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.

 

[Flamingtree]

I'm not sure what kinds of subjects you shoot, but I personally tend to shoot at the long to super long tele end for wildlife. For folks like me having an APS-C crop sensor reduces the Field of View giving us a boost on the Equivalent Focal Length (which when one combines what the lens delivers to the sensor and it captures IS the FoV). If one was to blow up the resultant images to the same size the subject will be larger in the frame - that's pretty beaten path stuff. However, the other factor is pixel density. If I was to reduce a FF sensor image to the same FoV as the APS-C one, the number of pixels would be reduced by a factor or about 2.56. So to take the example 45MP output from an R5 FF sensor, cropping it down to the same FoV of an APS-C unit would reduce the pixel count to around17.6Mp - which is not brilliant. Conversely, a 40MP ASP-C sensor (not unreasonable as the 90D had 34MP) would have the same pixel density as 102.4MP FF sensor. So for those of us who DO shoot at the very long end, there is a definite benefit.

Even if Canon came out with a R7 and kept the same lens mount, it would still work well. When the first digital EOS units came out, the EOS D30, D60, and 10D all had that arrangement, it was only from the 20D on that there was an APS-C lens mount. I actually own and still shoot with the first two of those bodies (for the fun and challenge of it) and they work really well with the EF lenses.

The image below is taken with the Canon EOS D30 (3MP) and the EF 17-40 USM, hand-held in available light.
View attachment 198939

I don’t doubt aps-c has its place. I just don’t understand the product strategy in a shrinking market, pushing people to full frame (where the margins are better) makes more sense to me is all.

Doesn’t Nikon have an apsc mirrorless, Z50, I wonder how well it’s selling?

 

[Flamingtree]

Well, that's just not true. Before switching to FF, I went out and bought all the FF "L" lenses I wanted first. Shot them all on a 70D for several months before buying a 5D Mark III. You see, I wasn't sure I wanted FF at the time, but I did want the glass.

The 70D fit my hands ok. An M series camera would not be any fun for me. Far too tiny, and an ergonomic nightmare, for my taste. So, from my perspective, the M is a no-go if I am looking for a crop sensor camera.

I'd have no problem shooting fast high end lenses mounted on an ASP-c body.

I take your point about ergonomics. I’m not sure I would want a small camera as my main camera either. In fact I wish my r5 was bigger. Same size as a 5d4 would be awesome.

anyway, I digress….. I guess my point is that if you had to switch mounts you would still stay with canon wouldn’t you? If you had to buy your 5d3 at the start of your FF journey would that have changed your buying decision?

 

[Ozarker]

I take your point about ergonomics. I’m not sure I would want a small camera as my main camera either. In fact I wish my r5 was bigger. Same size as a 5d4 would be awesome.

anyway, I digress….. I guess my point is that if you had to switch mounts you would still stay with canon wouldn’t you? If you had to buy your 5d3 at the start of your FF journey would that have changed your buying decision?

Yes, I'd still stay with Canon. I have switched mounts. The mount does not affect my decision. Available glass does.

 

[Dragon]

I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant.

It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable.

I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.

Yes, the APS-c mode of the R5 is nice. The 17.25 MP image with the new AA filter has resolution about the same as previous 20 MP APS-c bodies (think 7D2) and it produces a proper APS-c RAW file which keeps the file size down. The APS-c 4k video is also very good. I have a 90D and there are times when the extra pixels are helpful, but the list of lenses that you can see the difference with is pretty short. The feature on the R5 that automatically switches to APS-c mode when you attach an EF-s lens is also pretty cool. This feature set on an 80-100 MP high res body would make the whole APS-c body argument irrelevant other than the issue of price point and given the current market shrinkage, I can see where Canon might skip the APS-c body altogether. The M-line is a whole different bit of kit, given the petite bodies and lenses. My M5 is my portable camera of choice and I would like to see it updated.

 

[No Longer Active]

I've been shooting a lot with the R5 at 1.6 crop and actually, it is quite brilliant.

It seems kind of ironic that you posted an image from a 3mp sensor and simultaneously seemed to imply that an image from a 17 mp sensor is unusable.

I understand that many people want something closer to the 90D for a crop sensor R body. But, I wouldn't dismiss the versatility of the R5, which gives you a full frame body when you want it and a very nice crop body when you want that. Plus, it is available today.

Actually, with respect, I didn't suggest that the output of 17MP was unusable, what I did suggest is that crop sensor bodies have a pixel density benefit, specifically at the long focal lenght end, when one crops a FF sensor to get the same FoV. Another take away from that image is that Canon could continue to use the same R mount and FF lenses and have a crop sensor, as was the case with the earlier EOS MILCs.

My point in showing that image from the D30 was that crop sensors, even with a smaller size can still perform well, depending on the type of subject - this to counter the suggestion that a crop sensor is inherently inferior: however, a huge amount depends on what one is going to do with the resultant image. I would suggest that the image from the D30 would not blow up to a very large size, but is absolutely fine for posting on many websites (that downgrade images anyway), social media and some digital display. On the other hand if one is going to produce large, detailed Fine Art images, then you want a significantly better sensor. In 2000 the D30 was both revolutionary and leading edge (and relatively cheap too, compared to their predecssors and competitors).