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

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
432
253
I am one of those eagerly waited for Canon to release a 7D2 successor and the rumor that Canon still not planning to make one in near future is a bad news for me. In regards to EOS R my guess was also there will not be a Mark II My guess is based on the EOM. There was no EOS M Mark II. Now some may say the EOS M2 is mark 2 but from a naming perspective it is not a EOS M Mark II
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maru

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,340
544
I don't know, I can see value in having the RF APS-C system as creating a pathway to full frame and keeping people within the ecosystem as they transition. There are a number of lower cost full frame lenses which could realistically be purchased by a cost-conscious RF APS-C camera user who would want to continue use of the lenses on a new full frame camera when they upgrade. As a few examples, I could see an APS-C RF mount buyer also picking up an RF 35mm macro, or the 85mm macro, or even the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1.

Speaking from my own experience, when I owned a Canon 450D I had only 3 lenses - the kit lens (I think it was an 18-55), a Sigma 10-20, and a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. That Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 was the only lens I owned that would work with a full frame EF camera, but it was enough to tip the scales and get me to invest a 6D, despite the lens being my least-used lens at the time. People can be weird about their perception of sunk investment, so if people do buy any full frame RF lenses for an RF APS-C camera, I think they may become quite a bit more likely to buy a full frame RF body to prevent the perception of lost investment. With that said, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
I completely agree. Alot of people who think they might be interested wouldn't start with the M series because it won't be compatible with anything else. . An entry level RF with some cheap lens is a gateway into later selling full frame and L lens. I too was concious when I first bought a Canon APS-C to buy EF lens rather than EF-S lens. I'm sure Canon will also start releasing light , maybe plasticky but reasonably good lens to go with this RF APS-C camera. I'm sure a 7D replacement is also under consideration but its probably not a first priority, it would need to be fairly weatherproof. This APS-C may be less so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,005
795
I am one of those eagerly waited for Canon to release a 7D2 successor and the rumor that Canon still not planning to make one in near future is a bad news for me. In regards to EOS R my guess was also there will not be a Mark II My guess is based on the EOM. There was no EOS M Mark II. Now some may say the EOS M2 is mark 2 but from a naming perspective it is not a EOS M Mark II
Canon has stated that there will not be an M, R, or RP Mark II.
That is not how they name things.
That does not mean that they will not make an acceptable replacement camera with a different name.
EOS M is legendary for the 12-bit RAW video in Magic Lantern.
Magic Lantern for the 5D is kind of how we got 8K RAW in the R5.
For that to happen in an EOS M it would have to have either extremely low resolution or an expensive CF Express card.
EOS M is kind of a budget camera line and that would be a major departer but there are a lot of EOS M fans who would pay for a modern cinema camera that fits in a pocket for those of us who neither see Sigma fp or Fx3 as cinema cameras nor think full-frame lenses fit in a pocket.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
501
488
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.
Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
501
488
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.
Actually, the EF-M mount is a bit wider than the Sony mount so it would work for FF. I don't think Canon ever had any intention of M-lens interchangeability. The M line is about small and portable and the R line is much more industrial. Your wish is kind of like wanting the tires on your Smart car to be interchangeable with the tires on your Ram pickup. The fact that I can attach my EF 800L to my M5 and it actually works is impressive, but in that instance it is still a Smart car with pickup tires .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
608
343
Actually, the EF-M mount is a bit wider than the Sony mount so it would work for FF. I don't think Canon ever had any intention of M-lens interchangeability. The M line is about small and portable and the R line is much more industrial. Your wish is kind of like wanting the tires on your Smart car to be interchangeable with the tires on your Ram pickup. The fact that I can attach my EF 800L to my M5 and it actually works is impressive, but in that instance it is still a Smart car with pickup tires .
Your parallel isn't a great one because there's all sorts of huge reasons why Ram pickup tires on a smart would require total redesign of the Smart, and compromise it severely.

In contrast what compromise is my suggestion entailing? Would a few EF-M lenses have had to be a bit wider at the base than the lens barrel? Would any M bodies be forced to be taller? And if so would that compromise the M system to the point it just wouldn't be attractive any more? Honest questions, I haven't checked the exact specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -pekr-

Fotofriend

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
15
9
No idea if that's how it commonly plays out, but it is definitely how it played out for me, and I within my ultra tiny sample set, I can say that most of the full frame users I know ended up upgrading from an APS-C body to full frame within the same manufacturer in order to maintain access to a lens that also worked for full frame. Looking over other manufacturers ranges and outside of RF specifically, I think there are a few good candidates for lenses people may buy while owning an APS-C camera and wanting to keep as they go into full frame. For instance, the Sigma/Tamron super zooms are pretty reasonable and not uncommon to see on a crop body, and similarly with Nikon's 200-500. Replicating that relationship on RF may hold some potential for encouraging buyers to stay within the ecosystem.

I'm not sure the EOS-M is really aimed with a broader upgrade path to full frame. M has a really strong following and is really well suited as a compact camera kit where you can still change lenses. I think the M is Canon's answer for people who want a really compact camera kit, or a vacation camera - i.e. people who are going somewhere new and want to take better pictures than a cell phone but also don't want to break the bank and don't want to lug around a huge kit. While there have been plenty of rumours of EOS-M's demise, it does fit a niche that RF or EF isn't particularly well suited to at the moment. I could see them keeping EOS-M alive to keep filing the compact camera niche going.
That’s how I see it too and wrote before. The M System as a special but limited (lens options) offering with regard to compact size & portability, and then RF with FF and higher grade APS C option(s) as well (and much more (and often bigger) lenses to choose from).
I could image Canon will wait then how the reception of this will be and how the M system fares in terms of sales, and eventually still shut it down if it’s not really profitable enough to keep along the RF FF and APS-C options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

Fotofriend

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
15
9
Actually, the EF-M mount is a bit wider than the Sony mount so it would work for FF. I don't think Canon ever had any intention of M-lens interchangeability. The M line is about small and portable and the R line is much more industrial. Your wish is kind of like wanting the tires on your Smart car to be interchangeable with the tires on your Ram pickup. The fact that I can attach my EF 800L to my M5 and it actually works is impressive, but in that instance it is still a Smart car with pickup tires .
It’s not just about diameter and flange size but about the electronic lens-body communication as well; in this regard the EF-M mount (like EF as well) is also significantly more limited than the newer RF mount
 
Oct 31, 2020
172
186
A few months ago I suggested the following line-up for Canon:

Pro Level:
- R1
- R5/ R5s (high Res)

Semi-pro Level:
- R6
- R7 (direct 7d successor --> only to be released with continued high demand by Canon users)

"Cheap" segment:
- R8 (Eos R successor)
- R9 (RP successor)
- R10 (APS-C model)

Now, obviously I missed the R3, but other than that I think this line-up would still make sense. I'd also add an video-centric R5c to this line-up. I think the naming scheme with numbers will replace the name EOS R and EOS RP.

Now to the "cheap" options, because this thread is all about those:
The R10 would replace the xxxxD, xxxD, xxD line all at once. There won't be million rebels to sell, so it makes sense to merge those lines to a single line. Its job would be to attract new customers and people on a budget.

The RP (here R9) successor would attract people to full-frame. To keep it cheap, it lags several things such as IBIS...

Imho, The EOS R successor (here R8) is very crucial because it would sit between the RP successor and the very pricy cameras such as the R6 and others. The very cheap and "aggressively priced" RP won´t earn a lot of money for Canon. The EOS R successor would attract a lot customers (enthusiast with money as well as a "back-up" for pros) and would attract people who want "a little more" than the RP offers. It actually bridges the line-up towards the pro models. Therefore, this camera should be a hit. My wish would be:

Take the EOS R and...

- bump MP to 32-34mp (34mp would give us 13,28MP in crop mode, which is good/ great)
- 10 FPS with full auto-focus (mechanical & electronic shutter)
- better auto-focus (sill underneath of R5/ R6)
- IBIS (if not too expensive)
- improved 4k (no crop or different options such as 4K@30fps and @60fps)
- maybe replace the Touch Bar (most people hate, I like it...)

This package would attract a lot of people.


so, with the release of the "new affordable camera", I hope they'll name it R9 and my scheme will become reality I'm very much in the market for a direct successor of the EOS R.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
501
488
Your parallel isn't a great one because there's all sorts of huge reasons why Ram pickup tires on a smart would require total redesign of the Smart, and compromise it severely.

In contrast what compromise is my suggestion entailing? Would a few EF-M lenses have had to be a bit wider at the base than the lens barrel? Would any M bodies be forced to be taller? And if so would that compromise the M system to the point it just wouldn't be attractive any more? Honest questions, I haven't checked the exact specs.
I made the comparison, because the primary drive behind the APS-c R discussion comes from enthusiasts using (primarily) the 7D II and a few using XXD bodies who want "extra reach" for long lenses and also don't want to pay the price for full frame. The 7D and the XXD bodies are full sized SLRs and as such can be used to swing a supertelephoto lens just as well as a FF body. The M bodies are comparatively tiny (i.e. Smart Car) and even though they will fit and drive the big EF lenses, they are hugely impractical for big lenses. I use my M5 with a Tamron 18-400 (which is very small for its FL) and that is about the upper limit of practicality. Even the R5 is marginally too small when attached to an 800L. I think Canon is perfectly aware of this reality, hence the R3, which is clearly big and strong enough to work well with big lenses. I don't think we know yet whether Canon will abandon the M line and move everything to the R mount, but one thing is certain, Canon is selling a LOT more M50s that Nikon is selling Z50s so my sense is that the M line will be around for quite some time. When you are paying $12-15k for lenses, arguing over $1 or 2k for the camera to use them makes little sense to me.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,591
3,933
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.
Before delving into specifics, I’ll reiterate that your claim that Canon ‘didn’t think through’ the parameters of the two MILC mounts and consider users moving between them is simply ludicrous. You may think they made the wrong decision, but if you really believe they didn’t consider interoperability in their mount designs, you’re living in an alternate reality.

All of your arguments are purely speculative, based on your opinion of what buyers want and what they would have done or will do. You’re totally ignoring the fact that Canon has mountains of data on what buyers actually did.

The M line is almost a decade old. The EOS R came out nearly 3 years ago, the more affordable EOS RP came out over two years ago. Canon knows with high accuracy how many EOS M line owners bought an EOS R line body. Likewise, they know how many APS-C and FF DSLR owner bought a FF MILC. They know how many APS-C DSLR owners bought FF DSLRs on which their EF-S lenses wouldn’t mount). They know how many and what types of lenses those people had before the upgrade to FF, and what lenses they bought subsequently. You…have an opinion. You can bring your opinion to a data fight, but you’re not going to win.

Personally, I suspect only a tiny fraction of APS-C owners upgrade to FF. I suspect most of Canon’s FF MILC sales are to people who owned DSLRs (and their lenses are easily adapted).

People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.

People who can’t afford a FF MILC lens aren’t going to buy the body either? Well, so what? First of all, Canon wants serial customers for their high end gear (any FF setup is high end). The loss of someone who can’t afford the kit lens isn’t a big loss in that context. Second, those people could buy the body and an RF 50/1.8 for relatively little additional outlay.

Using any lens on any body is a selling point? Nikon DSLRs have that ‘very attractive sales point’ and Canon DSLRs don’t. Who has sold more? Clearly, THAT didn’t sell (a perfect example of data trumping your opinion).

Unifying the mounts would be the tail wagging the dog. Your suggestion that the EF-M mount could have been bigger to match future RF would mean bigger M bodies and bigger M lenses. Both contravene a major selling point of the M line. Canon should compromise the M line for the relatively few people who will upgrade to FF? That’s silly. Clearly the M line is a success, Canon’s decisions were spot on there.

Conversely, making the RF mount match the EF-M mount would constrain the R optics. Canon wisely chose to optimize both mounts for their intended markets, armed with the historical sales data to understand the consequences (presumably not significant) of those choices.
 

SnowMiku

EOS M6 Mark II
Oct 4, 2020
92
58
As for more dof with a crop camera, that is fallacious, crop the ff image with the same aperture to the same fov and the dof is the same, or use a deeper aperture and a higher iso for the same dof and noise levels.
I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
608
343
Personally, I suspect only a tiny fraction of APS-C owners upgrade to FF.
Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.

> Using any lens on any body is a selling point? Nikon DSLRs have that ‘very attractive sales point’ and Canon DSLRs don’t. Who has sold more? Clearly, THAT didn’t sell (a perfect example of data trumping your opinion).

You seem to forget what a quantum leap the all-electronic EF mount was, and may not have been around while Canon shooters were dismayed that their entire outfit was outdated at the stroke of a pen. Even in the mid-90s, 8 years later, I met photogs that said they felt raped by Canon and moved from FD not to EF but to Nikon in response.

And yet the superiority of the mount made it ultimately worth it, as Canon's share of the pro market went from 25% to 90% if I recall correctly.


In contrast there's no corresponding compelling technical reason to move from EF-M to RF mounts, when the EF-M mount could have BEEN the RF mount. And yet we have endless speculation on this very forum of Canon releasing small-sensor RF cameras that would be nothing more than M cameras with an extra couple mm of film-to-flange. I'm not positive but I think I've seen at least a few Canon patents of lenses with the RF film-to-flange distance but small-sensor image circles.

Time will tell. If Canon introduces a small-sensor RF body, that will prove me right and prove you wrong. Especially if they discontinue the EF-M product line at that time.

> People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.

No, because even with compatible mounts, they'd sell another lens anyway. So the incompatible mount doesn't give Canon a NET sale, rather only a sale they'd have gotten anyway.

> Your suggestion that the EF-M mount could have been bigger to match future RF would mean bigger M bodies and bigger M lenses.

Which lens? Which body? How much bigger? At what cost to sales? You may be right, but give me details on this if you're calling me a liar in front of the world.

> Conversely, making the RF mount match the EF-M mount would constrain the R optics.

Correct. That is why I never suggested this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
I've never had a Full Frame so this is a serious question. I thought the whole advantage of Full Frame over APS-C was a more shallow depth of field and reduced noise because of the larger pixels? If it's all the same depth of field and noise couldn't they just make all new lenses and bodies for APS-C from now on and just account for focal length difference? eg 15mm instead of 24mm.
People will argue about this for ever but the truth boils down to this, the bigger the sensor the more light you collect per exposure. You can choose to use that additional light in several ways, shorter shutter speed, deeper aperture etc.

You can exactly replicate pretty much any image characteristics from a smaller sensored image with a larger sensor, but that is not true the other way around. You can take pictures with a ff sensor with image characteristics you cannot replicate with a crop camera, particularly narrow dof and subject separation. How much difference there is and how much that is worth to any of us as individuals is a choice only we as individuals can make, but they are physical characteristics of the crop and ff systems (and medium format and iPhones etc).

That isn’t to say crop cameras have no advantages, as I already stated they do, particularly size, weight and cost. And the one area where crop cameras can beat ff cameras is when you don’t have a focal length long enough even with your crop camera. Then the crop camera advantage is pixel density so in the comparison cropped images the crop camera image will have more detail.

in the multitude of genres I shoot I am practically never focal length limited so I shoot ff for the flexibility and choice more light gathering gets me, and don’t forget a ff sensor collects 2.6 times the light a crop sensor collects!
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,005
795
Judging by the bulk of the posts on this issue, I think you are in the minority. Most seem to still be looking for the bargain they got with the 7D2. Personally, I would rather see a high res full frame because that still gives me the same number of pixels on the bird, but with a wider field of view with the same lens.
Maybe Canon can provide both in the form of R7 and R10 with R10 being the affordable model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowMiku

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
Think of video (super 35 like format) with all existing EF and EF-S + RF lenses for hybrid shooters.
If its smaller and lighter it could be a good alternative to APS-C SLRs in the future.

I think Canon has two other reasons to do that: focusing the resources to ONE mount in the near future for the higher end systems and sell more new RF lenses in an otherwise saturated market (the rare occurence of these simple EF to EOS RF adapters supports this idea IMO).
IMO EF mount will die soon, EF-M has its own niche and will stay longer, maybe much longer. M50 is a great little guy!

That would probably make more sense if the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS could take an extender. But it can not.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
1,005
795
I'm not buying a crop R camera, either its an affordable R tupe full frame or forget it.
I am not trying to get too personal here, but I am curious about what you would find acceptable in terms of specs and price.
I am not asking about your dream camera but the minimum it would get you to buy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergstrom