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

[bergstrom]

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-]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bergstrom]

An R2 with a dslr body.

 

[Michael Clark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

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]

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]

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.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

Canon has a patent to put IBI in small cameras.
We have not seen it in a camera but there are only two Canon cameras with IBIS at all right now.

 

[Michael Clark]

But there isn't any advantage to APS-C for an existing RF owner, so no reason to buy. R6 owner better off selling their R6 for an R5 rather than adding apsc - and R5 owners can crop and get the same effect while also being able to not crop for other purposes which obv apsc can't do

The reason mirrorless in general got popular is because it enabled small lenses with crop sensors. RF mount defeats much of the purpose of this since it needs to be compatible with larger diameter of FF lenses. Canon is basically giving the mirrorless portable market to Fuji etc if they go with RF apsc

Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

M50 is being affected by the supply chain issues in 2021, but in 2020 that was not so much the case until very late in the year. All of the M bodies were also in the catalog all year, not just shipping in very limited quantities from late July (R5) and August (R6) through the end of December.

Costco and Walmart are not where Canon is selling the majority of EOS M bodies. The Pacific Rim is where it's at for the M series.

 

[Chaitanya]

If it's the smallest camera in the EOS R lineup it will not have dual card slots.

If it comes to replace XX0D/Rebel/Kiss line then yes no dual card slots and may end up similar to exisiting entry level EOS-M cameras.

 

[Ruined]

Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.

This is not a great argument, either. If you can afford the latest and greatest bodies and lenses, then the extra cost should not be much issue (and this aps-c RF is not going to be cheap if it's any good, by the way)

RF mount stuff is not a good deal right now. I just upgraded to two brand new full warranty 51MP 5DsR bodies for $3000 total, which allows me to buy another EF L-grade lens also and still come in below the R5 for all all that. If you have a price target to hit, this is smarter and functionally easier than buying a crop sensor for one of your two main bodies IMO. Even if another EF lens is never made again, the EF lens selection is still overall better than RF right now and will probably stay that way for at least a few years.

 

[Michael Clark]

I also have no idea why the heck a person would want a Canon aps-c when the RP is $999. Do people really want to save some cash so bad they downgrade to a massively inferior sensor? I am on a fixed income of $600 a month, and I won't touch an aps-c; I will buy a used full frame before I buy a brand new aps-c. I guess people who have never shot with full frame and always owned rebels are ok with the inferioprity not knowing better, but I think it is still madness for Canon to make one. A $700 aps-c RF REBEL vs. a $999 RP full frame, with the RP still having more features? GTFO, I will pay the extra $300 every time so I have a "big boy camera." I stopped using point-n-shoots and aps-c when I decided that my images matter.
People (Rebel users) seem to think that those cheap prime lenses and that turd-like L kit zoom will still be as useful when they get a full frame, but that is seldom the truth, since by the time most people pony up for full frame, the L lens bug has already bitten them hard. For many, even the chintzy 24-105 f4 becomes too cheap to put on a full frame. Besides, we all know the 24-105 is an L imposter and a marketing tool for camera peasants.
To be fair, I guess it makes sense Canon would go through the boring motions of making a standard subpar Rebel aps-c just so camera peasants can play with the genius RF lenses, but a pro-level 7d-ish camera seems stupid, absolutely stupid, given how small and inexpensive entry-level full frame bodies are now.

I own three 5-Series bodies (II,III, and IV) and one 7-Series body (II). I owned my first FF body before I owned the original 7D (which I donated to the photography department of a local high school some time ago). I already had a 5D Mark III when I bought the 7D Mark II because, at the time, it was the only non 1-Series body in Canon's catalog with flicker reduction that revolutionized shooting under flickering stadium/gym lighting.

They're different tools for different jobs. When I'm shooting sports under the lights or indoors the faster handling APS-C body lets me get away with using the 70-200/2.8 I already own (and also use on the FF bodies for other purposes) instead of needing to pay $6,100 for an EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II and still need a 70-200/2.8 on another body for when the action gets too close. I'm also using the 5D IV with a shorter zoom (24-70 or 24-105) or maybe even the 5D III with a 16-35 or 17-40 and the 5D IV with a 50mm or 85mm prime.

The EF 24-105mm f/4 L is legendary for taking any abuse one throws at it and just continuing to work and giving images that are more than good enough for low resolution newsprint or web distribution. That's something the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L could NOT do. Look at it funny while the barrel is extended and that lens needs a trip to CPS for realignment. If you are lucky, it will be worked on by one of the few technicians who actually know how to line one back up properly.