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

[Michael Clark]

Actually, I said it was regularly in the top ten several times (as is in #2, #5, and #8 in different package configurations). My sense is that it is, and has been for some time the actual #1 seller on Amazon. BTW, for folks who don't live in cities with handy camera stores (about 75% of the population) Amazon and places like B&H are the only choices for both gearheads and non-gearheads.

It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that as amazon has declined as an attractive place to buy high priced items the B&Hs of the world are selling far more cameras than amazon.

 

[Michael Clark]

I didn't say that the 7 series had the same AF system as the current 1D series at the time. My recollection... which could be completely incorrect was that the 7 series had the previous 1D's AF system.
At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.

With many of your posts, I get the impression that you are missing the point of mine or misreading them and are arguing semantics without actually adding to the conversation. This is an open forum and that is to be expected but needs to be pointed out.
Perhaps you can suggest where a replacement 7Diii with equivalent features would be priced within the RF eco-system.

"Relatively cheap, weather sealed, dual cards, borrowed AF system from the 1D series."

"They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D."

Again, the 7D (2009) AF system was slightly more inconsistent from shot-to-shot than the contemporary 5D Mark II (2008) AF system was.


5D Mark II AF system was 9 points + 5 "AF Assist" points.




The 7D Mark II did not get a near 1-Series level AF system until 2014, two years after the 5D Mark III did in 2012.



At no time did the 7D series have a superior AF system to the 5D series. That was one of the basic premises of your suggestion that the 7D series should have been priced the same as the 5D series. (At a time when no competitor had an APS-C camera remotely priced at the 5D series level.)


The 7D most assuredly did NOT have the 1D Mark III AF system. It was a 19-point system introduced with the 7D and then later reused in the 70D.



The 1D Mark III, which was introduced in early 2007 a full two and one-half years before the 7D in late 2009, had a 45 point AF system that was also more accurate and consistent than what the 7D got.



The 1D Mark III was replaced with the 1D Mark IV at the same time the 7D was introduced in late 2009. It had pretty much the same AF system as the 1D Mark III, except that more of the AF points were cross-type.



As we've already pointed out above, Roger Cicala has well documented the performance differences between the 7D and the 1D Mark III.

The 7D Mark II, which came along in late 2014 did have the class of AF system you're talking about. But those of us who used the 7D know full well it's AF system was just as frustrating to use as the 5D Mark II's was, just in different ways. There was absolutely nothing about the 7D or 5D Mark II AF systems that was 1-Series level, either current or past. That didn't start until the 5D Mark III in 2012 and the 7D Mark II in 2014.

 

[Dragon]

It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that as amazon has declined as an attractive place to buy high priced items the B&Hs of the world are selling far more cameras than amazon.

That is a good trend. Monopoly sucks.

 

[Michael Clark]

At no point did I compare the 7 series AF system to the 5D's AF system.
My point was that the 7D/ii's relatively inexpensive price point had an AF system above what a similarly priced camera body would be. The totality of the 7D's feature were incorrectly priced in a market segment and was popular because of that as well as the "reach" discussions.

"They should have been priced at the 5D level based on the cheaper ASP-C sized sensor but more expensive AF system than a 5D."

That sounds like a fairly direct comparison to me.

Based on my own personal experience, the 7D had more AF points (19) than the 50D (9), but was no better at actually focusing the camera accurately and consistently than the 50D was. The 50D was not a more expensive camera than the 7D, which was the true replacement for the 50D, it was $300 cheaper.

The 7D was a slightly higher tier camera than the 20D/30D/40D/50D had been at the same time the 60D was a slightly lower tier camera than the 20D/30D/40D/50D had been. It was priced 30% higher than the 50D had been.

The 50D had a magnesium body and basically the same weather resistance that the 7D did. The 50D had AFMA. It had a lot of other features the Rebels did not have. Most of what you describe as being unique to the 7D was shared by the 50D and, to a lesser extent, the 40D/30D/20D.

If I had known then what I knew after using the 7D, I would have stuck with the 50D until the 7D Mark II came out. That was the one that raised the bar and probably should have been priced in the low $2K range. It was still not anything close to the 5D Mark III, which I used as my primary camera for about five years before getting a 5D Mark IV.

With many of your posts, I get the impression that you are missing the point of mine or misreading them and are arguing semantics without actually adding to the conversation. This is an open forum and that is to be expected but needs to be pointed out.
Perhaps you can suggest where a replacement 7Diii with equivalent features would be priced within the RF eco-system.

I've already said several times above that I think if we get an R7 it will be in an R6 type body and will be priced about the same as the R6.

 

[Finn]

When someone says that there has been a "revelation", implies that that is from Canon itself...

Speculation and rumor are perfectly fine. Don't fault others for your insufficient understanding of what a word means. You do know the difference between rumor and FACT, don't you? If you didn't before, I'm glad I could provide you with a revelation of the definition.

Rumor: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

BTW: This rumor is rated as CR1. Lowest possible reliability rating. Far from fact.

Oh, did Canon not say it shoots oversampled 4K?...what size sensor does it take to do that?...

They didn't say it shoots 6K. They didn't say it shoots 8K. Those are some facts we have.

That leaves a range of sensor resolutions that can achieve the official specs so-far released by Canon.

If they release tomorrow that it shoots oversampled 4K and 8K then we update the facts we know.

Facts change as new "revelations" are discovered or observed or learned.

But since we are being pedantic over this crap I should add a caveat to my above statements:

I'm ASSUMING Canon isn't a marketing retard and under-teases one of the most important spec sheet numbers of one of their most anticipated upcoming flagship cameras. Thats like Ferrari saying their new sports care "achieves highway speeds"...no they tease freaking absolute top speed of their product! "Our new sports car has...wheels!" "Our new flagship camera has buttons and shoots oversampled 4K!".

 

[Kit.]

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

Is it a fact, though?

Aren't you confusing it with Canon becoming the digital ILC market leader in the first year when he actually started trying (with Digital Rebel)?

 

[Ozarker]

Oh, did Canon not say it shoots oversampled 4K?...what size sensor does it take to do that?...

They didn't say it shoots 6K. They didn't say it shoots 8K. Those are some facts we have.

That leaves a range of sensor resolutions that can achieve the official specs so-far released by Canon.

If they release tomorrow that it shoots oversampled 4K and 8K then we update the facts we know.

Facts change as new "revelations" are discovered or observed or learned.

But since we are being pedantic over this crap I should add a caveat to my above statements:

I'm ASSUMING Canon isn't a marketing retard and under-teases one of the most important spec sheet numbers of one of their most anticipated upcoming flagship cameras. Thats like Ferrari saying their new sports care "achieves highway speeds"...no they tease freaking absolute top speed of their product! "Our new sports car has...wheels!" "Our new flagship camera has buttons and shoots oversampled 4K!".

Also didn't say it shoots 16k. Anyway, there has been no revelation as to sensor resolution on the R3... since forum speculation isn't fact. The only thing we know for sure is what Canon allowed to leak. BTW: Facts do not change as new facts (revelation from Canon) are discovered or observed or learned. Those facts were already there. The Earth wasn't flat up to the point it was determined to be a sphere. It has always been a sphere no matter what people speculated. Truth never changes. Facts don't change either. Rumors and speculation change.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it a fact, though?

Aren't you confusing it with Canon becoming the digital ILC market leader in the first year when he actually started trying (with Digital Rebel)?

The two were essentially contemporaneous. Digital camera sales surpassed film cameras in 2003. In 2005, Agfa went bankrupt and Kodak had axed 2/3 of its employees. In 2006, Nikon stopped producing most film SLRs (interestingly, they continued with a non-autofocus SLR for a while), and total film SLR sales that year were lower than in the 1960s (231,000 units in 2006, compared to over 5 million DSLRs). After 2007, CIPA stopped tracking film SLR sales.

But you’re correct that Canon’s press releases about market share are specific to digital ILCs.

 

[-pekr-]

That's aimed at a completely different type of buyer than the M-Series. What part of non-gearhead, non camera and lens collecting GAS afflicted Rumor site dwellers is so hard to understand?


The EOS M system has never been about folks who buy multiple cameras (either at the same time or via constant upgrading) and a lot of lenses (either at the same time or via constant buying and selling).

It's not about you and me or the kinds of folks who populate sites like Canon rumors.

It's about someone who wants a small, light, and affordable dedicated camera that is better than a phone (or a point and shoot when they were still around) with one or two lenses that fit what they like to shoot. They then go out and shoot with it without worrying whether it's the current "best" or not. Maybe it's travel photography. Maybe it's family and friends. Or flowers and gardens. Or butterflies. Or any other countless number of hobbies which is the central focus of the buyer, NOT the tool they use to take pictures of the things they are passionate about.

It's about people living in emerging countries that don't have the luxury of discretionary income to buy $1,000+ camera bodies. Even the few in such countries who would be able to afford such can't find them there because there's no distribution network for higher end cameras and lenses in their part of the world.

It's about folks who will buy a camera and use it for several years without constantly following the industry and obsessing over every new product that comes along.

There are still more of those kind of folks in the world than there are us, even if there aren't as many as there once was before phones began gradually moving upmarket from point-and-shoots to compact non-ILCs. Eventually smartphones will overtake the small, light, and cheap ILC market that the EOS M is aimed at. But they're not quite there yet.

It's not about you or the kinds of folks who populate sites like Canon rumors.

I liked your two previous posts, as we are in an agreement, that whatever action Canon takes, is a well though decision. So if they bring in RF APS-C models, they have a reason to.

But yours third reply (the one I am replying to), makes me wonder, when / if ever Canon should phase out something like EOS-M. I was myself scounting an M6 II, for kind of "street photography", having it always in my bag. Did not purchase it just because we spent reasonable amount of money switching to R5 + holy trinity. But man, how much I like the R6 design, even if without the EVF.

That make me wonder - those family types - are they really interested in interchangeable lens - anything? In that regards - how are G7x etc lines doing nowadays, business wise? Is there a big drop-down in sales, towards the smartphones?

 

[Kit.]

The two were essentially contemporaneous. Digital camera sales surpassed film cameras in 2003. In 2005, Agfa went bankrupt and Kodak had axed 2/3 of its employees. In 2006, Nikon stopped producing most film SLRs (interestingly, they continued with a non-autofocus SLR for a while), and total film SLR sales that year were lower than in the 1960s (231,000 units in 2006, compared to over 5 million DSLRs). After 2007, CIPA stopped tracking film SLR sales.

It was my personal impression back then that Nikon was less efficient in the market in both film and digital cameras for two reasons:

1. First, during the film era, the advanced features of their lenses (SWM, VR) were mostly reserved to their higher-end lenses, probably due to the cost concerns of implementing them (for the F-mount). Canon was throwing them (USM, IS) more liberally into the "advanced amateur" lenses.

2. During the beginning of the digital era, Nikon's official stance on the sensor size was that FF was dead and that APS-C ("DX") was the right choice for everyone. By Canon's strategy at that time, it was obvious that Canon considered crop sensors in high-level cameras only as a stopgap measure. Nikon only fixed that mistake of theirs by releasing their first "pro" "FX" camera, D3, in August, 2007, while Canon was already selling an "advanced amateur" full-frame camera, 5D, for 2 years.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That make me wonder - those family types - are they really interesting in interchangeable lens - anything? In that regards - how are G7x etc lines doing nowadays, business wise? Is there a big drop-down in sales, towards the smartphones?

There has been a huge drop in point and shoot sales mostly attributed by the camera companies to smartphone sales but G7x and ZV-1 sell relatively well.

 

[Dragon]

In short, you're saying I'm RIGHT, and only complaining that I'm right from using that evil superpower, HINDSIGHT.

Actually, no, my career's big wins have been based on not knowing what I'd have to do next and leaving myself all sorts of room to head different directions. I didn't need hindsight to come up with the idea of being flexible, I just needed imagination.

I actually have e-mails from 1999 outlining a view to a friend that EVENTUALLY cameras like the R5 would come. (He was the first Leica M shooter I knew, and I countered with a G2 outfit for my backpack but ended up getting sucked into Leica eventually too.) And Canon knew that far more surely and far earlier than me.

When they started the M, you're right, they couldn't be 100% certain the tiny displays would come, or that once they came that any users would want it. But they could be SOME level of likelihood, and there'd be very little price to pay to go down the road I suggested, just to be ready in case that day came.

Instead, look, every day someone is wondering aloud on this forum about small-sensor RF mount, and some of those people would be buying M systems but for the fear uncertainty and doubt Canon is casting on its own product. Meanwhile others are still lambasting the RF system even today for the paucity of portable lenses--go look on the 28 f/1.2 patent article to see someone sternly pointing out they need f/2 lenses. Had Canon gone my way, both sets of users would have fear issues removed from the idea of using Canon. Well, since you're basically arguing I'm right, I know I don't need to convince you. And if you're not going to take my word that this observation isn't hindsight, by all means believe whatever you want. Go ahead and keep calling me a liar in a public forum. I don't really care what you think.

Mighty defensive for someone who doesn't care what others think. You also completely ignored my last sentence. The most important question is if Canon had introduced the R mount in 2012 in APS-c only (which would have looked pretty stupid to reviewers) would they have sold more cameras in total than they did with the decision they made. I suspect not, because the cameras and the lenses would have been enough bigger to be unattractive to the then primary market in Asia. Your approach would also have created questions about mirrorless FF way before Canon had the technology to produce them and thus would have potentially hurt DSLR sales. Just because your idea looks good today from a user perspective, doesn't mean that it would have been the best business decision in 2012. Canon made the M to compete with Sony APS-c cameras and as such it was and still is quite successful. The fact that we gearheads would like to see either higher end M bodies and more M lenses or a move to APS-c R has zero influence on about 97% of the M buyers. Heck, they are still buying M50s even after the release of the mark II because the original is a few bucks cheaper. BTW, I didn't call you a liar. I said your premise was incorrect and that is a very different thing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The EF-M barrel width, 60.9mm is bigger than the RF mount, 54mm, so no, I don't see why the lenses would be bigger.

If I'm overlooking something please fill me in.

You clearly don’t grasp the fact that the 54mm EF/RF ‘mount diameter’ is the throat diameter – the inner diameter, not the outer diameter that determines the barrel size at the base of the lens.

SwissFrank said:
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.

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.

Measure the minimum diameter of any EF-S lens. Do a little basic math. Are you suggesting that somehow making lenses larger in diameter than they optically need to be would also allow them to be shorter in length? LOL.

But it’s apparent that you can’t differentiate facts from assumptions, because you treat your own assumptions as facts.

Walking away from a conversation is much easier than admitting you are wrong.

 

[Dragon]

Why would you make that assumption? It's pretty clear you're just looking for reasons to insult other forum members and I'm done with you.

You are routinely done with anyone who questions your often erroneous presumptions. Sad but humorous.

 

[Ozarker]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.


How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume.

LOL. Seriously? You specifically excerpt the following quote from my post:

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.

Then, you reply with, “Why would you make that assumption?,” and when called on your BS, claim you were referring to camera body volume?!? That’s pathetic. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong?

As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

Yes, lenses vary in diameter across their length. Show me a few examples of ‘regular’ lenses (i.e., not special purpose like macro probes) where the mount is the widest part of the lens, and the rest of the barrel is much narrower in diameter. As an example of what that would look like, this is the proximal part of the T2 camera adapter for my Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope with a T2-EF adapter on it.

Such lenses would certainly be unusual-looking with a strange aesthetic. I doubt a series of lenses like that would be attractive to a wide customer base.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that …

There was a 6-year gap between the introductions of the EOS M and EOS R lines. How would customers be shown anything about the future EOS R? Your proposal would have people waiting >6 years for the ‘future FF camera’ that would justify their odd-looking lenses. That’s ridiculous.

More importantly, your proposal is irrelevant. You are flailing around trying to justify your statements because Canon made a rational and logical decision with which you happen disagree.

How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

As I’ve already stated, there’s no way to know. What we do know is 1) Canon made small size a design priority for the EOS M line, 2) the EOS M line became the global best-selling MILC line, 3) the R series is selling very well, and 4) the M series continues to sell very well.

If those were not the case, your argument that Canon ‘gave no thought’ or ‘made a mistake’ in mount choices might be plausible. But the sales data are objective evidence of the logic behind Canon’s decision, and thus your repeated arguments against it and your sad attempts to defend them have become puerile.

…I'm done with you.

Even when you make a claim over which you have complete control, you prove that to be just as bogus as your other claims. Seems your willpower is just as weak as your logic.

 

[Michael Clark]

I was referring to camera bodies' volume, not lens bodies' volume. As for lens volume, I don't see a need for the entire lens to be wider. Many lenses vary in diameter across their width. Surely it would suffice for just the base to be wider, and not by much, so I don't think it would hurt sales. Users want a lens that isn't too big, but I suspect they gauge size more from volume than diameter. A slightly wider base shouldn't increase total volume more than a couple cubic centimeters.

I'll meet you half-way and agree that were everything else equal, buyers would prefer a lens without a wider base. But everything else ISN'T equal. In my proposal the customer is 1) shown that their 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.8 will work fine on future full-frame cameras to be announced later, should they decide to migrate up to bigger bodies, 2) their other lenses will ALSO work on such full-frame cameras, in fact capturing the entire image circle, 3) they can mount any lens for that future FF body on their M without an adapter, and 4) most importantly, their investment in M-series products wouldn't at some point go dead-end like the EF has. And as a spin-off advantage, 5) the first R body would have a nice set of street-photography lenses already available. Further, 6) should you need to or want to you could even use the small-sensor lenses directly on the big-sensor body. This gives an intermediate size AND pixel count: more than a pure M system even if less than an R body with an R lens.


How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages? How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?

1) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now need, nor will they need (or want) in the future a 24/2, 25/2, 35/2, or 50/1.8 for a full frame body.

2) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now plan to, nor do they see themselves ever migrating to full frame in the future.

3) The vast majority of EOS M owners do not now have full frame lenses they want to mount on their EOS M bodies, nor will they ever.

4) The vast majority of EOS M owners buy a camera and whatever lenses they plan to use with it over the life cycle of the camera at the same time. They're not worried at all about whether the 1-3 lenses they bought with the EOS M will fit their next camera five years or more from now when they might think about buying another camera.

5) The vast majority of EOS M owners didn't care when Canon would introduce their first mirrorless FF cameras at the time they bought their EOS M cameras, because they're not the type of buyers that would have considered themselves ever buying a FF camera. Not to mention that the first R body didn't appear until six years after the EOS M system was introduced.

6) The vast majority of EOS M owners never remotely considered if the 1-3 EF-M lenses they bought with their EOS-M camera would work on FF cameras they don't see themselves ever buying.

"How many M buyers would steer clear of an M purchase because of wider lens bases despite such advantages?"

Quite likely a significantly large percentage of those who have actually bought EOS M cameras because they are lightweight, compact, and relatively inexpensive.

"How many people who've shunned M OR shunned R would have bought if there was such interoperability?"

Virtually none who are among the buyers for whom Canon created the EOS M series.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN

1. Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
2. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
3. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
4. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit White
5. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Sliver
6. Nikon D5600 Double Zoom Kit
7. Nikon D3500 Double Zoom Kit
8. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit Black
9. Canon EOS Kiss X10i Double Zoom Kit
10. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White

Pretty clear that DSLRs are not dead – one of them tops the list (Kiss X10 = 250D = SL3), and 4 of the top 10 ILCs are DSLRs (consistent with global ILC market share).

There are no FF ILCs in the top 10, only APS-C. Six of the top 10 best-sellers are Canon products (entirely consistent with their continued market leadership, and entirely inconsistent with poor decision making or a lack of strategy).

Every camera in the top 10 was sold with two zoom lenses, which suggests that 1) most buyers are not upgrading from a prior model, 2) they are probably getting the two lens kit because that's all the lenses they'll ever buy. As @Michael Clark states, that's very consistent with the entry-level market segment – people who buy an APS-C body and 1-2 lenses with it, and that represents their total investment unless their camera breaks in a few years, in which case they buy another entry level body with the 'new' kit lens(es).

The fraction of entry-level APS-C buyers who upgrade to FF is very small, and of those who do having 'an upgrade path' that allows them to use their APS-C lenses on a new FF body is not a significant concern. Certainly it's not a significant concern for Canon, because they did not offer that upgrade path for EF-S or EF-M lenses.

 

[Dragon]

Some relevant data, the top 10 best-selling ILCs in Japan for May, 2021 as reported by BCN

1. Canon EOS Kiss X10 Double Zoom Kit Black
2. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Black
3. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White
4. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit White
5. Sony α6400 Double Zoom Kit Sliver
6. Nikon D5600 Double Zoom Kit
7. Nikon D3500 Double Zoom Kit
8. Canon EOS Kiss M2 Double Zoom Kit Black
9. Canon EOS Kiss X10i Double Zoom Kit
10. Canon EOS Kiss M Double Zoom Kit White

Pretty clear that DSLRs are not dead – one of them tops the list (Kiss X10 = 250D = SL3), and 4 of the top 10 ILCs are DSLRs (consistent with global ILC market share).

There are no FF ILCs in the top 10, only APS-C. Six of the top 10 best-sellers are Canon products (entirely consistent with their continued market leadership, and entirely inconsistent with poor decision making or a lack of strategy).

Every camera in the top 10 was sold with two zoom lenses, which suggests that 1) most buyers are not upgrading from a prior model, 2) they are probably getting the two lens kit because that's all the lenses they'll ever buy. As @Michael Clark states, that's very consistent with the entry-level market segment – people who buy an APS-C body and 1-2 lenses with it, and that represents their total investment unless their camera breaks in a few years, in which case they buy another entry level body with the 'new' kit lens(es).

The fraction of entry-level APS-C buyers who upgrade to FF is very small, and of those who do having 'an upgrade path' that allows them to use their APS-C lenses on a new FF body is not a significant concern. Certainly it's not a significant concern for Canon, because they did not offer that upgrade path for EF-S or EF-M lenses.

The M50 shows up 4 times in that top 10 list, likely making it the number one seller. A similar pattern shows up in the Amazon best seller list. The M50 is likely the best selling ILC in the world and we keep hearing people say Canon should trash the M line. Amazing how gearheads can get disconnected from reality.