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
1,219
1,716
Oregon
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.

What's that got to do with how folks hold their cameras?
 
Upvote 0
If that's the case, then we'll probably never see an R7.

Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.

I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be as good or nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience at a lower price but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see R7 happening remotely soon is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.

Surely you're not suggesting that multiple images of a moving subject exposed in sequence combined into a very high megapixel single image will work for sports? Even if it could be done to image a moving target with several lower resolution exposures combined to produce a single 200MP frame, the processing demands of such a method would certainly prevent high frame rate continuous bursts for more than a handful of frames?

If the processor is powerful enough, it is physically doable for sports at least is what I am saying - just requires a more powerful processor. I don't know what Canon has in mind exactly, but I would hope it would have some ability for motion otherwise it would have an extremely limited use case of still-life only.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Well, we never saw a 7D3 in the timeframe we'd normally see a refresh for any other line. Now that Canon still has two mirrorless FF sports-related bodies on the map that haven't even come out yet (R3, R1) and just recently launched the R5 which is usable for sports, I think for the way they market stuff it would be way too soon to come out with a "good enough" sports/reach compromise camera at a much lower price.

I think an R7 is possible eventually, I just think that they would first want to maximize sales of more expensive FF sports-related mirrorless cameras before offering a lower cost alternative that might be nearly as good for this use case. I think if an RF APS-C does come out in the near term again I'd expect something like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP sensor, so it gives the mirrorless experience but clearly isn't good enough in AF or in pixel density to compete with any of the FF mirrorless sports-related cameras. The only way I could see this happening is if Canon decides to throw profits to the wind in an attempt to dominate the mirrorless segment in every single slice of the market, which is of course possible - but leaving money on the table is generally not their MO.



If the processor is powerful enough, it is physically doable for sports at least is what I am saying - just requires a more powerful processor. I don't know what Canon has in mind exactly, but I would hope it would have some ability for motion otherwise it would have an extremely limited use case of still-life only.


Based on all I've seen, the R3 will be a sports body, but the R1 will then be a 1-Series continuation along the lines of the 1Ds/5D III and IV concept of high resolution bodies optimized more for studio, portrait, and wedding work than for sports. It seems to me they are dividing the 1-Series line back into separate sports/reportage and studio/fashion models.




It all depends upon what kind of lenses and how many of them Canon thinks an R7 can sell that wouldn't otherwise be sold. We'll see eventually.




You may have heard about a few issues of heat with the R5? That would be a minor warmup compared to the firestorm of heat generated by what you're proposing.

No one in their right mind thinks using multiple exposures and precise IBIS movements to create very high resolution images would be useful as a sports camera. For one, the camera would need to be absolutely stationary, so one couldn't follow the action while shooting in burst mode. Every other camera I'm aware of that uses IBIS movements to generate high resolution images from multiple lower resolution frames can only use that feature as an extremely limited use case for still life only.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
Interesting that the difference is much greater in the lower right and upper left corners than in the rest of the scene.

View attachment 198304
My experience with the r5 is that it stays just over a stop ahead of the 90D (I have both) up to at least 12800 and that includes more pixels in the bargain. If you click the comp button, it gives a better idea of the relative amount of detail captured. I suspect a fair bit of the difference results from how hard the 90D pushes lenses. The MTF on most lenses drops like a rock at that resolution. I have a lot of glass and not much of it takes full advantage of that sensor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
This is only true of Canon lenses.
Third-party lens makers do no have to stick to that.

I doubt Canon makes decisions about the size of the mount ring for an entire line of camera bodies aimed at a specific market that does not include camera gearheads based on what third party lens makers may or may not do.

Further, how many third party lenses are currently available for the EOS-M mount? A mount that has been around for nearly a decade now? Perhaps the third party lens makers also realize, along with Canon, that the typical EOS M buyer does not collect lenses the way those here at Canon Rumors do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
Most M owners don't speak/read/write English. They live on or near the Pacific rim.
Funny, the M50 has consistently been showing up 3 or 4 times in the top 10 on Amazon US. Makes it look like the best selling camera in America. But, yes Americans speak American, not English .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak.
You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.
 
Upvote 0

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
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.
Your reply is very restrained considering the brutality of my answer. I don't know why I was so mean.

My m3, m5, and m6, as well as my gx5, were all great cameras for street photography, and I forget how much I liked them. I loved them all, being a waist shooter fan, because most had movable rear displays, which full frame didn't have at that time. My sigma quattro dp2 aps-c was cool too, a very unique looking camera with unique images.
Most street shooters supposedly prefer 35mm lens shot at f8, although I am a different type of street shooter: I prefer wide open fast lenses in 85mm for street work, and I prefer action isolation and narrow DoF.
I also notice that my RP has a build like a Rebel instead of a 6D, and it is already bent out of shape from heavy street use. So I can also see why some folks would buy a 7D with a magnesium metal body. My full frames were always tanks. I also remember times I considered an SL3 because I am addicted to miniature things, and that camera is tiny.
So ultimately I can see at least a FEW reasons APS-C could still be bought and it make sense.
Thank you for replying, and reminding me.
As for a 24-105, I would use one if it came my way, but I just can't take it seriously. My best friend is still using a 5D Classic and 24-105 v1, so maybe that is why I am so scornful of the lens. Her work could be so much better if she would upgrade at least that body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,023
12,776
And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.
Did they, though? Both Canon and Nikon introduced autofocus lenses in the late 1980s, and Canon became the ILC market leader in 2004. So, who led the market in the 'decade or two' after the introduction of Nikon's sucky autofocus? Gosh, it was Nikon. #factsbeatopinions

In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount.
"The camera's size, image quality, advanced video capabilities and the versatility of Canon's full lineup of lenses make the EOS M another great option to help our customers record and capture their creative vision," said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A. Canon lists size first. As for noticeably bigger or bulkier, we'll get to that below.

Please tell me which APS-C cameras or EF-S lens would sell better if Canon had made EF-S lenses compatible with FF cameras? You can't, nor can I tell you which cameras or lenses would have sold less well if they were a bit (or more than a bit) bigger. But the whole woulda-shoulda-coulda speculation is irrelevant. Canon designed the M mount the way they did, and the M line became a global sales leader.

You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?

...and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all.
Gosh, your math is sure selective! Your ability to ignore established facts and your own previous statements is really quite impressive.

You're suggesting that a 7mm greater throat diameter can be accommodated by a 4mm increase in height. How would that work? By eliminating the already minimal space above/below the mount so the mount goes right to the edge of the camera? Maybe possible, but unlikely. And the greater vertical height would enable them to make the camera shallower? Golly gee, you seem to have forgotten that you also wanted the 20mm RF flange focal distance instead 18mm of the EF-M...so it wouldn't be shallower (unless you conveniently ignore your prior statements).

Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
Evidently you don't understand what throat diameter means. Let's try an anatomical analogy – if your throat was the same diameter as your neck, you could spew a lot more BS from your head.

The throat is the inner diameter of the lens mount, not the diameter of the full mount.
Screen Shot 2021-06-14 at 4.39.38 PM.png
The outer diameter of the EF-M mount is...60.7mm, essentially diameter of all the EF-M lenses (they are all flush with the edge of the thin black ring around the silver mounting surface, which is the place the rubber ring on weather-sealed lenses actually seals on FF cameras). The outer diameter of the RF mount is 69mm, meaning had Canon used the RF mount for M cameras, all the lenses would be 13% larger in diameter, meaning a 28% larger volume assuming the lenses stayed the same length. That's a far cry from 'wouldn't be any bigger at all', isn't it? #factsbeatopinions

  • Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.
If only you knew how to work with them properly, but evidently you don't. Sad.

YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.

In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.
Did you forget that EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs? They had two systems of lenses, and the EF-S lens list comprises a full system of ultrawide to telephoto zooms with a couple of primes and a macro lens. Oh my goodness, that list sounds a whole lot like the EF-M lens list, doesn't it? But sure, Canon didn't think about that at all, either, right? :rolleyes:

Because if they had, you might be tempted to believe that that Canon's data suggest APS-C users mostly stay APS-C users, and those relative few who upgrade to FF end up changing out most or all of their lenses, meaning mount compatibility is not very important.

Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:
  • When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
  • In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
  • R comes out, with its initial 3-4 lenses... but it turns out, hey presto, another 4 lenses long used by M shooters work full-image on the R! And all the small-sensor ones do too! And if you choose to use those with the small image circle, then you can shoot now and tweak framing later. Take any shot and make it a vertical shot. Or make it square or 2:3 or 9:16 or 4:3 without wasting pixels. Or rotate it a few degrees to straighten up the angles without having to throw away pixels. The result is that an 18-55 zoom on the M works on the R and gives you the same MP as the typical M body and same "reach", when that's convenient for you. And when not, then use big-boy full-frame lenses.
  • Meanwhile put any of your big-boy full-frame lenses on your M body. Maybe you're backpacking but want that pro-quality macro, or what have you.
Just to be clear, you're saying:
  • Bigger bodies, and >25% bigger lenses, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
  • Making lots of prime lenses with big image circles, meaning not just 25% larger but substantially heavier, and aimed at a target market that has a strong preference for zooms over primes, would have been a good idea for the EOS M line.
  • When the R came out, a major target market was current owners of EOS M cameras, as opposed to current DSLR owners. (Would love to see you data to support that claim, although we both know you don't have it, but as I keep saying, Canon does.)
  • Using RF lenses on an APS-C camera is a major advantage, even though cropping negates much of the optical advantages those lenses provide, or what have you.
Quite frankly, none of that even remotely sounds smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
You really should get your poop straight before trying to be insulting. Here in rural Arkansas, with the best schools in the world, we would never say 2/10" in America-speak. The proper translation is 1/2"... or .5" for you base 10 challenged yokels.
Actually in America speak, we would call 4mm 5/32nds of an inch (almost dead on the money).
And gosh, as **I** already told you, Nikon paid a huge price for that as their autofocus sucked for a decade or two and their lenses had to be designed around the small aperture.

In contrast, no-one's illustrated some huge price that Canon would have had to pay by making the EF-M mount simply the RF mount albeit perhaps with the EF-M film-to-flange distance. Sure its a few mm bigger, but I don't think big enough that the cameras or lenses would be notably bigger or bulkier or more expensive or heavier. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me which M model or EF-M glass would no longer sell if it had an RF mount. But please stop just ignoring what I explained now several times and continue citing the false example of Canon as a company that retained a mount and paid a price. (That would be a parallel if Canon, instead of making the EF-M the size of the RF mount, instead continued using the inappropriate EF-M mount for the R series bodies. They'd have a bad electronic bus and small mounting aperture, both of which would cripple the system.)



OK, that was pretty funny :-D


  • Thanks, finally some numbers to work with.

You got me. The M2 would be 4mm taller, less than 2/10" in America-speak. That would of course let you cram just that much more hardware inside vertically, making the camera a bit narrower and/or shallower, no?


YES BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE M LINE WASN'T THE R LINE. You're presenting the fact that Canon did the very thing, the stupid thing, I'm arguing against, as an argument that they had to make that decision.

In the EF world we had one system from pros to neophyte weekenders. People are arguing here that somehow Canon is clearly thought this all through and for THIS era, with LOWER sales, is magically maximizing profits with TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS, and yet the same camera company with, you'd think, the same brainpower, thought in the PREVIOUS era, when sales were much HIGHER, that ONE system would serve everyone.

Just to be clear what I'm saying would have been smart:

  • When introducing the M system, give it the dream FF mirrorless mount. Basically the RF's diameter and system bus. Flange distance could be the EF-M's 16mm (18mm??) or the RF's 20mm, I don't think it matters too much. As you say, some M bodies might have been 4mm taller and correspondingly narrower or shallower. I can't imagine that would have torpedoed sales.
  • In addition to lenses with a small image circle, make a few more lenses like 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, with full image circles. "Don't bother telling anyone" as it doesn't start to matter until the R body comes out.
  • R comes out, with its initial 3-4 lenses... but it turns out, hey presto, another 4 lenses long used by M shooters work full-image on the R! And all the small-sensor ones do too! And if you choose to use those with the small image circle, then you can shoot now and tweak framing later. Take any shot and make it a vertical shot. Or make it square or 2:3 or 9:16 or 4:3 without wasting pixels. Or rotate it a few degrees to straighten up the angles without having to throw away pixels. The result is that an 18-55 zoom on the M works on the R and gives you the same MP as the typical M body and same "reach", when that's convenient for you. And when not, then use big-boy full-frame lenses.
  • Meanwhile put any of your big-boy full-frame lenses on your M body. Maybe you're backpacking but want that pro-quality macro, or what have you.


Right, and if some M models need to be a couple mm taller, they can then be a couple mm narrower or shallower. You seem to be thinking I'm demanding more volume inside the camera. Not at all. Likewise you say the RF mount is 54mm and EF-M lenses typically 60mm in diameter? In other words the lenses wouldn't be any bigger at all, would they?
The huge fallacy with your whole argument is based on assumptions from what we know today rather than looking at the actual history. When the M was introduced (July 2012), the top of Sony's mirrorless line was the Nex3 and Sony had NO FF cameras in either the Nex line or the Alpha line. The A99 (not mirrorless) didn't come out until Sept of 2012 and the A7 (Sony's first FF mirrorless wasn't released until Oct 2013. At that time, the sensor technology wasn't fast enough to provide an EVF experience that was competitive with SLRs. Canon did not Release the RF mount until they thought they were at least close to making a FF mirrorless practical and it really wasn't until the R5/R6 came out that the speed was there to actually make a FF mirrorless better than an SLR. In 2012, it wasn't clear that mirrorless would ever overtake SLRs and Canon certainly wasn't going to trash their SLR business until they knew for certain that they had something better.

Using hindsight to judge anyone's previous foresight is a game anyone can play, but it proves nothing unless you can clearly show that the one making the "faulty" decision actually had the data that you have looking backward and that is almost never the case. There is also the known fact that for every ILC sold, there are 1.4 lenses sold. That means that way less than half of camera buyers ever get an extra lens (when you take into account that some of us have many lenses). I think it is fair to assume that APS-c owners buy even less lenses, which is to say that the vast majority of EF-s and M owners never go beyond the kit lens. With that in mind, I would ask what is the point of your argument if it doesn't matter to the vast majority of camera owners?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,219
1,716
Oregon
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.
I’ve got to say I’m still not seeing it.

View attachment 198317

Funny how system MTF always comes back to bite the smaller formats in the behind even if the sensor noise performance is equal. That is the price to pay for that supposed extra "reach". With the right lenses (a very short list) and enough light, the extra reach is there, but statistically not as often as APS-c and u4/3 aficionados would like to believe.
 
Upvote 0
If there's an APS-C RF camera, at least we'll have a use for all our EF-S lenses, with an adapter. Unless Canon cripples EF-S lenses on the RF crop bodies, which I wouldn't put past them. But yeah, you'd think replicating the messy EF-S bodies/glass situation would be the last thing on Canon's mind. This is not the 2000s-2010s. Sales of bodies are still dropping hard. If they start dumping RF-S bodies into the market again, year after year, fragmenting the product line with minor tweaks, T8i/80D/77D... ugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0