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

maulanawale

EOS M50
May 25, 2021
45
88
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.
Yes that's very true. I guess I'm just wishful thinking. . .
 
  • Love
Reactions: Dragon

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
711
605
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
I strongly suspect that better framerates and improved eye-AF come for free with a more modern sensor. Everything seems to point to the slow sensor readout being the bottleneck on the RP.

I sold my RP to get an R5, but I'd love to have something that size next to my R5 again. Just replacing the 6DII sensor with the R6 sensor would improve it a lot. When I compared the dragonfly photos I took with an RP and 1DXIII side by side, the 1DXIII pictures were all more detailed, despite having less megapixels.
Remember that the RP camera is a great value, but it is nerfed in a few ways. I own three of them for remote wildlife placements. Canon opted to not allow a silent shutter (my biggest frustration); used the old Rebel menu format for customizing settings; employs a sensor that was considered the weak point of the camera in which it was first introduced years prior; and a few other software choices that didn't have anything to do with expense. Again, it's still a great value at 40 percent the cost of the R6.

Using a full frame sensor that has 2014 full frame quality gives it very roughly the image quality of a current APS-C sensor, yet doesn't require Canon to spend gajillions retooling factories and designing an entirely new set of lenses, thus dividing its economies of scale. So it kind of makes sense to not do APS-C at all. It used to be a big cost difference in sensor production, but that is lessened now due to a much lower percentage of wafers being ruined during production.

So I'm skeptical that the APS-C development work is for the sorts of cameras people on this forum would use. I could see them making a crop sensor version of their Vixia video cameras, whose updates have been pretty lame for the last few years, or definitely some of their security cameras. That all makes sense.
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
206
218
Gainesville,GA
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.
Wow, that’s an interesting viewpoint but one I find hard to agree with at first read. While I’m sure Canon has made mistakes I. Their own eyes I don’t think they have made huge ones, especially in regards to their RF offering. I’m sure many would have loved to see just what you suggest but the reality is that they are staying sold out of RF technology on many fronts. Now some of that can be assigned to current widespread supply chain issues but the sales numbers are definitely there for Canon based on the ones I’ve seen. That has to be measured as an overall success not a huge mistake I would think.
 

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,066
1,513
brettguyphotography.picfair.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?
Nope. I spent nearly 6 years shooting apsc and in that time bought high quality FF lenses which with an adapter i can now use on my FF body while still using them on my 7d2 when i need the extra pixel density
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,024
806
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.
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.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,024
806
Remember that the RP camera is a great value, but it is nerfed in a few ways. I own three of them for remote wildlife placements. Canon opted to not allow a silent shutter (my biggest frustration); used the old Rebel menu format for customizing settings; employs a sensor that was considered the weak point of the camera in which it was first introduced years prior; and a few other software choices that didn't have anything to do with expense. Again, it's still a great value at 40 percent the cost of the R6.
RP is basically a FF M50 and it was aimed at the same people.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,624
3,976
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.
I think it’s very unrealistic to suggest that Canon ‘didn’t think through’ the mount design for EF-M and RF. Both are optimized for the size of the sensor behind them and, in the case of EF-M, for small camera bodies.

You’re suggesting that Canon should have provided an ‘easy’ upgrade path from APS-C MILC to FF MILC, i.e., one that doesn’t require an immediate outlay for new lenses. Canon is not interested in making things easy, they are interested in extracting the most revenue possible from their customer base.

How much data do you have about purchases of Canon FF bodies and lenses by owners of Canon APS-C cameras? Canon has ample amounts of those data, every imaging product registration collects demographic and other product ownership information. Most buyers never purchase more than the lens sold with the camera (logical inference based on the 1.4:1 ratio of Canon lens and body sales).

Of those that do upgrade from APS-C to FF, I suspect most buyers willing to make the jump from EOS M to EOS R would not find the inability to use their EF-M lenses on a FF body to be a significant impediment. How many of those that upgraded from an APS-C DSLR to a FF DSLR owned EF lenses prior to the upgrade? We don’t know that…but Canon does.

Bottom line, incompatible MILC mounts is likely not a substantial upgrade barrier, and means Canon actually sells more lenses, meaning more profit.

More importantly, there’s an ‘easy’ upgrade path —a simple adapter— for both EF-S and EF lenses to mount on any Csnon MILC, and the Canon DSLR owners represent a massive base of potential upgraders to MILC lines.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,024
806
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.
Canon clearly thought it through.
The EF-M mount was meant for smaller cameras with smaller lenses and is the #1 selling mirrorless APS-C line,
The RF mount is the same size as the EF mount and it is the #2 selling mirrorless full-frame line.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,024
806
I wonder if Canon will discontinue the RP and the R and replace them with a single lower end camera at the $1300-1500 USD price point. Personally, that is what I would do for FF. You would have three non-gripped bodies at $1500, $2500, $3800 price points.
I can't see a reason to do that instead of just lowering the prices of those two cameras.
A full-frame model below the RP does not make much sense to me, but I could see one slightly above it and a price reduction.
On the other hand, R and RP are selling pretty well since Canon dropped their prices.
If I were in charge at Canon then I would be tempted to only introduce more expensive models instead of undercutting sales of already well-selling models with cheaper ones.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
416
499
Orewa , New Zealand
The combination of no IBIS and no AA filter will probably not happen since Canon has a patent to perform AA using IBIS like Pentax currently does.
You can turn them both off when you do not need them which seems like the best of both worlds.
I didn't know Canon made any cameras with the option to turn the AA filter on and off but I'd be happy to have that option.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
416
499
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
610
343
Canon clearly thought it through.
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.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: scyrene

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
610
343
Bottom line, incompatible MILC mounts is likely not a substantial upgrade barrier, and means Canon actually sells more lenses, meaning more profit.

There are three problems with your argument:

1) People in photography are typically DYING to buy another lens. You don't have to trick them or force them into it. Rather than force them to buy a second normal lens with their second-format body, let them keep using their old normal lens and let them splash out on a speccy special lens instead.

2) People in photography may not be able to AFFORD to buy another lens, and if they can't afford the body and a REQUIRED lens, they're hardly going to buy just the body.

3) an interoperable system is itself very attractive and can be as much as a sales point (or more!) than raw spec and technical ability. Canon! You can use any lens on any body. THAT would sell. And Canon can choose a better profit margin or larger sales volume.



Say the EF-M mount was the RF breadth and bus, but also a shorter film-to-flange distance. They had eight years there where they could have sold full-frame lenses in that mount, modest spec like 35/2, 50/1.8, 24/2.8, even 90/2.8, where being full frame doesn't necessarily make the lens too big for RF. Then when they finally introduce the R body, there could have been 4-5 full-frame lenses ALREADY WAITING for it. And you'd be able to use the EF-M lenses on the bigger sensor too. This would let you shoot, then adjust format later (3:2? 2:3? 4:5? 9:16? Square?) and also adjust camera rotation, all without losing pixels or requiring the camera to be held vertically. So even with the 18-55, say, and not enough cash to buy a fancy high-spec RF lens, you might actually be able to buy "just" the body to use with your consumer zoom and your full-frame modest-spec street-photography lens.

Some moron's saying that because sales are good, they must therefore have thought this out. I'd suggest that despite sales being good, they could actually be BETTER had they thought this out and unified the two mounts.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,639
4,066
Irving, Texas
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
I care about IBIS for photos. I have lots of lenses that do not have IS. When I finally get back into RF lenses, the first ones I buy will not have IS (RF 50mm f/1.2L, RF 85mm f/1.2L, and RF 28-70mm f/2L). As I get older, my hands get shakier. I often shoot in low light and would rather not turn up ISO so much to get a faster shutter speed. So I care about it. The next body I buy will have IBIS to aid in my stills photography.
 

Maru

EOS 90D
Feb 9, 2019
131
30
More affordable than an R6? Hoping so. I primarily do landscape and see no compelling reason to pay the extra $500 or so that an R6 costs over a Z6II. As great as the the RF lenses are, the fast ones not affordable for me, nor do much good for landscape work. I prefer the Nikkor S 24-70 f4 and their great S50 f1.8 to what I see from Canon. My mind is open, not wishing to buy right now, and anxiously waiting to see what Canon delivers.
Agreed...many will not agree here but canon has killed 1k-2k market on RF and they dont have any intention to fix it...
 

Maru

EOS 90D
Feb 9, 2019
131
30
What I don´t understand is, that Canon leaves the entire segment of enthusiasts and pros on a budget to Sony and Nikon.

Sony has the A7III for 1800 €/$ and Nikon has the Z5, Z6 and Z6II all of them very capable cameras between 1300-1800 €/$. Canon only has the EOS R (slow, without IBIS, without 2nd cardslot, ...), that in my opinion is clearly overpriced compared to Sony and Nikon and aswell to the EOS RP.

I have the EOS RP and I´m happy with the performance for the price of around 1000 €/$. But I would like to upgrade soon to a more capable camera. Shooting mainly portrait and architecture, I´m shurely not willing to pay 2600 €/$ for a 20MP EOS R6.

If they just brought the price of the RP back down to 999,- incl. EF-RF-adapter, there would be no need to replace the RP at the moment because it´s a great entry to the mirrorless FF segment.

What is really missing in canons lineup is a capable camera between 1500-2500 €/$ with 30+ MP, IBIS and good DR that is able to beat the A7III/IV, and the Z5/Z6/Z6II.-

Guess I´ll have to wait till 2024+ to replace my RP...
Yes they dont care about this market segment and probably want us to give up