Another announcement cycle is out of the way, so what’s next from Canon for the EOS R system?

Joel C

EOS R6, EOS R, EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
112
102
Tacoma, WA
Why would Canon bring to market this R100 without cheaper prime APSC lens first to address the R10 and R7? My reason for not buying the R10 and instead I bought another M50. If they want to sell the FF $2k-$3k primes already available, why bother making a low end R (No lens) and just keep the M series with some new updates for the vlog market like 4K non cropped to compete with more features than say the Sony ZV-E10?

Then concentrate on the higher end, something in 60mpx-100mpx medium format but smaller than say the R3. Something that a prospective Leica or Hasselblad buyer might be enticed to buy instead? Just wondering aloud.

Another thing that seems no camera mfg addresses with all the vloggers complaints I hear over and over are better audio preamps for hybrid cameras so if a new M6-mk3 or R100, why allow 3rd parties microphones sticking out on top and not "one up" Sony and their deadcat stereo doo-dad? or partner with a Japanese audio company like Roland, Boss, or Tascam or Shure preamp board/chips embedded. Or built in wifi transmitter for clip on lavalier?
What's actually kinda wild is that DJI sort of figured out the audio issue with their wireless lavalier set. It all its own charging case, and plugs directly into the side of the osmo action 3. (I don't vlog with large DSLR types anymore for reasons like this, I carry 3 action cams and wireless mics, I get three angles and audio for less than my 15-35 2.8 lol)

I think Canon could easily make something like this to fit their cameras. They just don't seem to want to.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,575
4,111
The Netherlands
The RF 16mm has heavy vignette and distortion. I would like to see a 15, 16 or 17mm f/2 or faster without the heavy vignette and distortion. Yes, it would be heavier and more expensive, but much more interesting to me.
In the context of crop sensors, how much distortion and vignetting are we still getting with the RF16mm?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
504
338
I'm curious about how they can put an R mount on the M100 body :D... It's physically impossible !
Only a camera sized like the EOS M6 Mark II (or an M50 pushing form factor with the EVF) can handle it. That's just physics. Or may be they will make the cameras more "squared" to reduce global size (with a printer in it... wait !) ...

The M100 is 67.1mm tall, while the RF 50/1.4 is 69.2mm, so an increase of 2.1mm would allow the camera to accommodate not only the 54mm mount height, but the height of an actual lens mounted on it.
I haven't seen anyone mention this but since the RF film-to-flange distance is 20mm not 16mm, the cavity in front of the sensor also must take more space. Setting those two factors aside, the total volume and weight of the camera wouldn't increase, so an increase in height would be offset by less width. If the cavity requires more depth that'd balance with yet less width again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
10,779
3,158
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Ok, but still, an EOS M100 is something you won't have with R, at all. And dimensions/weight are the first interest of EOS M system, so yes it has to do with dimensions and that's what most users of this system appreciate : that it can be very small and light with lenses. With 20% more matter in the mount, the "small and light" gear concept is invalidated from the start. But, hey, let see how they will handle that anyway.
You are making a lot of silly assumptions.

For example, the first EF 400 2.8 was 15lbs, the latest RF version is less than 7lbs. They cut the weight by half and yet added a bunch of elements and groups and IS to the design. Engineers are always finding new ways to save on weight and size as well as figuring out more efficient designs, but it doesn't stop there. Manufacturing capabilities are constantly changing and advancing, which is one area Canon is at the top of the game. There are things coming in camera manufacturing and design that we don't even know about yet.

The word "impossible" is a short-sighted one in most cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,575
4,111
The Netherlands
I consider the original M to be the right size, for me, as a second body to a big body (first a 7D, then an RP and now an R5). The first 2 pictures show the original M compares to the R5, the 3rd picture shows how much bigger the M6II is than the original M.

If the R100, like the rumours suggest, lacks an EVF, I would almost certainly order one. The question then is what to do with the M gear. The original M+22mm is still my go to setup when going on a stroll with the family during sunny weather, in the autumn and winter the M6II fits into the larger pockets of the non-sunny weather coats.

The EF-M22 and RF16 are roughly the same size, as are the EF-M32 and RF35, but there is no 11-22mm RF-S equivalent yet.

An M300 would of course be the option that would both fit my situation best and be the cheapest :)

IMG_2688.jpeg
IMG_2689.jpeg
IMG_2690.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Apr 29, 2019
271
260
Agreed a RF 300 2.8 is due. Personally would rather see if without a 1.4x. Without a TC, the RF 300 2.8 should be light enough to hand hold for a reasonable duration. Plus if I have enough light for f4 I'd use the 200-400. It's a little shorter than a 300x1.4 but gives me more composition options. Sadly an RF 200-400 f4 hasn't been talked about anywhere I've looked. The decade old 200-400 design is due for an upgrade. And why not dream big, how about a 120-300 f2.8 (to match Sigma and Nikon's offerings) with the possibility of a TC.
A 300 2.4 with a switchable TC 1.7x gives you the 300 needed and the 500 f4 in one lens.
 
Upvote 0

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
123
147
France
www.deviantart.com
You are making a lot of silly assumptions.

For example, the first EF 400 2.8 was 15lbs, the latest RF version is less than 7lbs. They cut the weight by half and yet added a bunch of elements and groups and IS to the design. Engineers are always finding new ways to save on weight and size as well as figuring out more efficient designs, but it doesn't stop there. Manufacturing capabilities are constantly changing and advancing, which is one area Canon is at the top of the game. There are things coming in camera manufacturing and design that we don't even know about yet.

The word "impossible" is a short-sighted one in most cases.
I was only talking of the camera for the M100, saying it was impossible to make it with RF... but I'm sure you understood.

Your example spots a tele lens, and of course all the manufacturers have found ways to reduce their size and weight since years.
It's vastly more difficult to find significant reduction of size and weight in wide to standard lenses line-ups, which are the main interest and nearly the content of the whole line-up of EF-M.
I simply wonder how Canon can keep the form factor of say, an EF-M 11-22mm with a bigger mount. Don't see anything silly in that..

And, you don't need to be insulting because I disagree with you, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
123
147
France
www.deviantart.com
The M100 is 67.1mm tall, while the RF 50/1.4 is 69.2mm, so an increase of 2.1mm would allow the camera to accommodate not only the 54mm mount height, but the height of an actual lens mounted on it.
I haven't seen anyone mention this but since the RF film-to-flange distance is 20mm not 16mm, the cavity in front of the sensor also must take more space. Setting those two factors aside, the total volume and weight of the camera wouldn't increase, so an increase in height would be offset by less width. If the cavity requires more depth that'd balance with yet less width again.
Yes, the flange is another concern indeed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
I simply wonder how Canon can keep the form factor of say, an EF-M 11-22mm with a bigger mount. Don't see anything silly in that.
Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.
 
Upvote 0

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
123
147
France
www.deviantart.com
Compare the EF-M 18-150 to the RF-S 18-150. The optics inside are identical, and the form factor is the same except for the slight increase in diameter right at the mount.
Indeed, they just adapted it. Which is probably a patent clue of the will to replace the EF-M line-up.
Still, I think those models with their likely few more grams, few more millimeters on the left, the right, top and bottom won't be as valuable as were EOS Ms models for their targeted users... Some EF-M users have not buy the M6 Mark II already because they were fine with the M6 form factor (which is just slightly smaller).
I just seriously doubt Canon can sell as many R replacement of an EOS M50(II) as they did (so well). But I can be wrong (not silly, I hope, just wrong ;) )
And I wish I am, to be true (wrong, not silly :D).
On the other hand, we are probably going to have some more important concerns than that in a near future..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
504
338
OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.

I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.

I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....
Why, though?
 
Upvote 0

SwissFrank

1N 3 1V 1Ds I II III R R5
Dec 9, 2018
504
338
A 35/1.0 would have about the amount of bokeh of a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8. (They all have about a 35mm entrance pupil, the diameter of which is basically what determines the size of out-of-focus highlights relative to an in-focus subject.) If you've ever used a 50/1.4 or 100/2.8 wide-open, a 35/1.0 is that same bokeh, just in a wider shot.

There are 35/1.0 (albeit smaller sensor) on the market already. Check out some of the photos. Quite lovely.

A 50/0.7 likewise is the same as 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4, etc., simply wider.

A 135/1.0, when stopped down to f/1.4, would have perfectly circular highlights from center to deep corner. A DS-type filter would then cut transmission another stop, so it's be very similar amount of light and amount of bokeh to a conventional 135/2.0, which, while "a lot," is hardly unusable. But instead of disks in the center turning into American football shapes in the corners, it'd be soft-edged cotton balls across the entire image. You would be able to recognize images created by this lens even when they were the size of a postage stamp. It'd be the most beautiful portrait lens in history. And it'd be expensive, but about the same as the 400/2.8 or Nikon 300/2.0. Is that a good enough reason why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
123
147
France
www.deviantart.com
OK, a drum I've beat often on this forum: Canon should be pushing out more "halo" lenses than they are. EF had the 1200/5.6 and 50/1.0. I think RF could have a 35/1.0, 50/0.7, and 135/1.0DS. These aren't even that technically challenging, I don't think. There were 50/0.7's made for Kubrik and for I think a Soviet moon orbiter.

I'm hoping the delay in the 35/1.2 is that they decided to make a 1.0 instead....

Yes, and that's one way that makes a difference with smartphones of course (at best it's a hardware vs "faking" software fight for the moment). Anyway, I think manufacturers are having quite a hard time to evaluate what the target users would wish to own (or not) as a camera system in the future...
They look quite spot on at the right moment (Nikon have made spectacular efforts that are paying, it seems, for instance)... but who knows ?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Still, I think those models with their likely few more grams, few more millimeters on the left, the right, top and bottom won't be as valuable as were EOS Ms models for their targeted users... Some EF-M users have not buy the M6 Mark II already because they were fine with the M6 form factor (which is just slightly smaller).
I think the trend toward slight size increases in the M line is a hint that Canon believes a bump of a few mm and grams are well-tolerated by the market. Personally, I’ve avoided the M bodies with an EVF to keep size down, but the increase from M/M2 to M6/M6II have not bothered me.

I just seriously doubt Canon can sell as many R replacement of an EOS M50(II) as they did (so well). But I can be wrong (not silly, I hope, just wrong ;) )
If Canon does abandon the M line in favor of APS-C R bodies, it will be because they believe the R replacement will be more profitable for them overall. History has shown that they tend to be right in these matters.

Note that more profitable overall does not necessarily mean selling more units of the camera. It’s possible their forecasting indicates that increased sales of RF lenses due to a wider base of relatively inexpensive crop bodies would be more profitable overall. As I said before, they have many years of data on this from DSLRs.

I was quite surprised that they chose to make the RF mount incompatible with M bodies (they could’ve made the flange distance, slightly longer, enough to allow for an adapter). I speculated that meant their data suggested there was not a significant fraction of users who followed the “upgrade path“ from APS-C to full frame. However, it’s possible their long range plan at the time was to recapitulate the availability of that path for the RF mount. To the extent that that path is profitable for them (which it seems to me, it would be), it makes sense to drop the M line in favor of crop R cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
123
147
France
www.deviantart.com
I think the trend toward slight size increases in the M line is a hint that Canon believes a bump of a few mm and grams are well-tolerated by the market. Personally, I’ve avoided the M bodies with an EVF to keep size down, but the increase from M/M2 to M6/M6II have not bothered me.


If Canon does abandon the M line in favor of APS-C R bodies, it will be because they believe the R replacement will be more profitable for them overall. History has shown that they tend to be right in these matters.

Note that more profitable overall does not necessarily mean selling more units of the camera. It’s possible their forecasting indicates that increased sales of RF lenses due to a wider base of relatively inexpensive crop bodies would be more profitable overall. As I said before, they have many years of data on this from DSLRs.

I was quite surprised that they chose to make the RF mount incompatible with M bodies (they could’ve made the flange distance, slightly longer, enough to allow for an adapter). I speculated that meant their data suggested there was not a significant fraction of users who followed the “upgrade path“ from APS-C to full frame. However, it’s possible their long range plan at the time was to recapitulate the availability of that path for the RF mount. To the extent that that path is profitable for them (which it seems to me, it would be), it makes sense to drop the M line in favor of crop R cameras.
Ok, sorry my answer was lost with the website upgrade.

We won't agree on some points but it's not a problem. I'm perfectly on the same boat as you for the "EVF free" bodies. But my bags may disagree for the rest :D
My final thoughts are, to put it clearly and simply :
- Canon probably won't address a whole photographer equivalent APS-C R system as practical and portable as EOS M was : no matter how some may consider EOS M, M3, M100, M200, M5, first M6 and M6 Mark II, they really were/are mainly photographers cameras to my sense, not vlogging cameras and one of the main interest of the system was its specific form factor and handling experience for photography.
- Canon is actually only replacing EF-S for the moment, with R7 and R10 : even if it seems they may reuse some EF-M lenses formulas to address it, why wouldn't they ? Especially considering these formulas originally addressed a mirrorless system.
- I've no hope for an EF-M 32mm F/1.4 R replacement for instance, which is a fantastic lense : for this one, I still really hope I'm wrong, and would be glad to be.
- they'll probably only offer a vlogging R small camera as Nikon did with Z30 : perhaps it will inherit from some M50 features and ergonomics, but I doubt it would be more than that.

And again I hope I'm wrong... anyway, I prefer being pessimistic and have a (some) good surprise(s).
And only future will tell. :D

Have a nice evening... and wow, the new front page is cool ;)
 
Upvote 0