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

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,223
1,719
Oregon
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.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,223
1,719
Oregon
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Fotofriend

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
18
13
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Fotofriend

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 14, 2020
18
13
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
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,223
1,719
Oregon
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,096
12,857
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.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,066
2,395
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: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0