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
3,810
2,177
It’s going to be a very interesting few years as Canon Revamp there lineup. Will they truly leave the popular M series behind or morph is into an small bodied APS-C with RF mount. Will they release a successor to the 7D, A crop frame in a reasonably pro body worthy of a single digit. What about the 90D, they are running out of numbers for the two digit line. The RPii as an entry level FF has a place but the eosR was only every a stop gap till the R5 came out so I doubt it will see a replacement

I'm guessing your "RP II" will be named the R9?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergstrom

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality.

That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.

Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Not everyone wants or needs a full frame camera. Personally I use both full frame and APS-C Canon DSLRs and mirrorless. Different tools for different purposes. Each formats has its strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons.
Someone who is rather specialized in what they shoot may only need one format or the other. But some if us shoot quite different types of subjects and can see benefits in having a choice of formats.
Shooting a lot of sports (commercially) and wildlife (personally), I use crop sensor cameras about 10X more than I do full frame (architecture, landscapes, portraits, etc.) A number of my 24 lenses are L-series, too, and see their most frequent use on crop cameras. I long ago learned that tip quality glass was the most important aspect of photography and never felt any shame hanging a 500mm f/4L, 300mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L off a Canon 10D, 30D, 59D or 7D-series camera.
For some of my shooting, I would find it very useful for an RF 100-500mm lens to "act like" a 160-800mm, simply by using it on an APS-C R-series camera. Yes, I could use a full frame camera and just add a 1.4X teleconverter... But that costs one stop of light and only gets me to 700mm. Also, yes I could just crop a full frame image to the equivalent of APS-C... But that costs resolution. To equal 24MP APS-C, the full frame image would need to be done with a 63MP camera. To equal a 32.5MP APS-C image, the crop would need to be done from an 80+MP camera. Since those don't exist (and will be quite expensive when they do), Canon please give me a good APS-C R-series!
The Canon M-series do not suffice as Canon's APS-C mirrorless contribution. Yes, I have one (M5) and really like it for certain purposes (street photography, casual portraiture, travel). But the M-series... and especially the very limited selection and type of lenses Canon has so grudgingly produced for them... just do not have the performance necessary for some types of photography.
Canon has sort of treated the M-series as interchangeable lens Powershots on steroids... They've acted as if M-series fall somewhere in between a point n shoot and a "real" camera like a DSLR. It's not that M-series aren't quite capable and didn't have a lot of potential. It's just that Canon appeared to be afraid of eroding their own DSLR sales and chose not to go "too far" with the M-series. And now, because it must be a pain to produce four distinct series of lenses with limited interchangeability, you can bet Canon will eventually sunset the M-series and replace them with APS-C R-series.

Canon will sunset the APS-C DSLR models before they sunset the APS-C mirrorless M series.

They haven't made a new EF-S lens in years. Other than the EF-S 35mm Macro and the compact EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 kit lens in 2017, there have been no other EF-S lenses since 2013 or 2014. EF-M had four new lenses surface between 2015 and 2018.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
989
786
That's exactly what happened to me...

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

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

Anyone had a similar experience?
I hate when people tell beginners that they should consider future lenses before they buy their first cameras.
Most first-time buyers will never get serious enough to buy high-end lenses.
I stuck with Canon because I loved my first camera.
I have zero use for the lenses that I originally bought.

It is when someone wants to upgrade from beginner to enthusiast is when the lens system needs to be considered.
On the same note, most enthusiasts will never turn pro so they do not need to consider pro-grade lenses.
While many people do go pro with beginner, or enthusiast gear they make switch camera systems entirely when they have made enough money to buy new gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and JustUs7

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
The simplicity of having a single mount may simplify design and product development, I hadn’t really thought about that.

But the case of using a crop on say 70-200 I don’t get. If you own a 70-200 2.8 and FF you’ll like buy a lens with a longer reach if you need it rather than a smaller sensor. At least that’s I would think about it.

Lot's of folks used a 70-200/2.8 on the 7D because it was a LOT cheaper than using a 300/2.8 on a FF (plus you still needed a 70-200 on another body for when the action came too close to the sideline).

7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 = $1,700 + $2,100 = $3,800


1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II (+ 5D Mark IV + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II) = $6K + $6.1K (+ $3.5K + $2.1K) = $12,100 (+$5.6K) = $17,700

F/4 and slower lenses do not cut it shooting sports under the lights and in gyms.
 
Last edited:

bergstrom

Photographer
Feb 23, 2015
289
179
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.

Better focusing than the 6d2 , eye focusing and more focus points, better sensor, better everything really. I don't mind if it still used an LPE6, instead having to buy new batteries . Better sensor, 2 card slots. Low noise in video like the song a7iii I think, which loooked ok at 250,000 iso or something, turning pitch dark almost into day. Lower noise in picturres without having touse noise reduction. So many things I could list, but obviously they can't put everything in that the R3 or R5 has, but they could come close and at a lower price point, more people would buy it.
 

-pekr-

EOS R5
CR Pro
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.

I was one of those users, who require a so called upgrade path, though I can admit, that it is mostly a psychological barrier. Hence a long time ago I have predicted RF APS-C camera coming.

In no way I think, that EOS-M is an afterthought, I think it is exactly as Canon has planned it to be. No problem giving you a credit here.

But the recent situation still leads me to the following more broad point of view - what is the future of an APS-C at all? For me, the top APS-C model is EOS-M6 II. Now imagine, that in order for the focusing / video being faster, Canon will have to update the tech anyway. In a similar way, EOS R and RP could not provide the performance of R5/ R6 generation.

So let's imagine, Canon develops new APS-C sensor. And everybody wants it to be speedy in all areas .... including lens. My prediction is, that what we will see coming, is kind of M6 II successor. APS-C RF body, where initially you would be using your RF lens. Later on I can imagine creating RS lens - the same mount, just smaller.

How much smaller could such a camera be in comparison to the likes of R5/R6/RP or M6 III, that is the question. But let's reverse the question - could it be small enough, to be accepted by the EOS-M community as a next gen step for the M line?
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
989
786
If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.
This is a popular sentiment but there is no way a 50 MP FF sensor can be made as economically as a 30 MP APS-C sensor.
Then there is the added cost of RAM and heat management to handle the extra data.
It just does not make much sense to buy a full-frame camera if all someone wants to do is crop in.
As someone who owns MFT, APS-C, and FF It is getting harder to justify owning all three.
However, for someone who just wants one, I can't fathom why people think, "Why don't you just buy a more expensive camera with more expensive lenses?" is a good answer.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
If Canon have a high enough MP camera, the other solution would be to use its crop mode when needing extra reach. I could see this being the better solution to having separate cameras for crop and FF.

The sensor resolutions needed to get there get out of hand rather quickly.

The $3,900 R5 at 45MP, for example, crops down to 17MP at APS-C dimensions. That's less resolution than the $1,700 20MP 7D Mark II.

To match the 32 MP APS-C 90D ($1,200) or M6 Mark II ($850 + $200 for the optional EVF)), you need a FF sensor with 82 MP. An 82 MP camera that can go 10 fps with a decent buffer size won't be anywhere in the neighborhood of $1,200, or even $2,200 or even $3,200.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Lenses, lenses, lenses. Profit profit profit. Despite the popularityb of the M50 and M6mk 2, there are more Rebels and EOS cameras on the planet and in campus and university bookstores than any other camera.

Yet the M50 and M6 Mark II, along with other EOS M cameras now sell more units worldwide than all the Rebels. The Rebels are sitting o on store shelves. The M series are sitting in buyers homes.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
That would depend on what you mean by affordable.
There is not much point in a cheap RF APS-C camera before cheap lenses arrive.
People complained about the RP but owners were able to adapt EF lenses.
Rebel users can already do that to the M line.
M line users can't do that at all.
7D owners often use full-frame lenses so an R7 makes more sense.

If RP users can adapt EF lenses to the RP (and they can), then cheap APS-C RF mount camera buyers can also do the same.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
989
786
key upgrade features for me would be IBIS and ergonomics/control layout less M50-ish. Plus better DR and battery life. But keep the size small.
Going by the patents, Canin does have the tech to put IBIS in an RP body, but I'm not so sure how much that will add to the cost.
I could see the entry-level RP and R body cameras not having IBIS, especially since many people do not seem to care.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050

There's not as much flexibility in what you suggest as having two bodies with two lenses at the same time.

I shoot with FF 5D Mark IV for most of the time. Often I also use a 5D Mark III with a supplemental lens.

But when shooting sports/action my primary body is the 7D Mark II with a 70-200/2.8 (instead of a FF with a $6K 300/2.8), and the 5D Mark IV plays the role of the "short" body with a 24-105 or 24-70. I'll usually shoot a couple of thousand frames with the 7D Mark II and maybe 100-200 with the 5D Mark IV. Thus I'm wearing out a $1,700 camera instead of a $3,500 camera (prices when they were new).

At only 5 fps, the 5Ds R and 5Ds are not fast enough handling for the way sports shooters are expected to work these days.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
989
786
Yet the M50 and M6 Mark II, along with other EOS M cameras now sell more units worldwide than all the Rebels. The Rebels are sitting o on store shelves. The M series are sitting in buyers homes.
Where did you get that?
I know DSLR sales are way down this year but I have not seen a breakdown by camera model.
Rebel T7 was Canon's best-selling camera before.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Seems like Canon is pulling a Nikon and directing their potential APS-C buyers to the bigboy RF mount.

Worked for Nikon.

Canon "M" users can't be feeling good about this, but is was sadly expected. No camera company can sustain four different mounts
at the same time: EF, EF-S, M and RF.

They want to funnel everyone to RF, just like Nikon to Z.

The "one mount to rule them all" strategy.

Most Canon M users don't think about all of this stuff. They do a little research, buy a camera and a couple of lenses, and then use them for at least four or five years before the stick their heads up to see what newer stuff is out there. They're not camera gearheads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Well there you go. Clearly Canon wants to consolidate their mirrorless lens lineup into one system, the same way Sony and Nikon and literally every other major manufacturer has done. EOS M ended up being a stopgap and that's really all there is to it.

A "stopgap" that is the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, unless the introduction of the R5 and R6 in 2020 has supplanted it, though with the mid-year introduction of those two models and the supply chain issues I doubt that could happen until 2021 at the earliest.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
key upgrade features for me would be IBIS and ergonomics/control layout less M50-ish. Plus better DR and battery life. But keep the size small.

RP replacement will not have IBIS. Anything that does won't be nearly as small.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
989
786
A "stopgap" that is the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, unless the introduction of the R5 and R6 in 2020 has supplanted it, though with the mid-year introduction of those two models and the supply chain issues I doubt that could happen until 2021 at the earliest.
M50 has been hit by supply chain issues as well.
It would make sense for Canon to get the most expensive cameras out the door first.
However, they can't screw over the Costcos and Walmarts of the world that are selling M50. M200, and Rebel cameras.