Are Two EOS M cameras coming in 2020? [CR1]

OK, this is a much more logical take in the context of Canon.... but I still don't see the upside for a 7D2 shooter, outside of the..... "opportunity"..... to buy some expensive and exotic RF glass. The ability to use all their old EF glass and LP-6x batteries while also getting a small selection of native mirrorless glass seems like a win-win for the user. Maybe I am looking at this too logically:D:D:D:D
I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying here. They get a selection of native glass whether they go M or R, they can attach their EF lenses to both bodies.

With the R they can take their batteries. With the M they cannot.

The R has more lenses that appeal to a birder or a sports shooter which is using a 7x series.

And they get the same balanced body / ergonomics / layout on a new R body.

Potentially for both bodies (ignoring heat):

They get a better sensor (both size, 32MP, and DR). They get a slightly faster fps.

Most importantly, they get Animal AF.

If they price it in the same range as the 7x was sold for with NPV, then what's not to like? Take all your existing kit, get a more modern system, better AF, cleaner images, subject tracking, plus the opportunity to add a lightweight 600mm or 800mm lens for less than a grand.

Is that any less compelling than the R5 and R6 for existing FF dSLR users?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
I wonder why one would have studied this, but wouldn't have studied logic. There is a difference between "reality is perception" and "perception is reality".

Or is logic counterproductive to marketing?
Whether one considers it "reality is perception" or "perception is reality" when comparing ontology and epistemology all depends upon whether one is primarily an epistemologist or an ontologist.

Marketing attempts, for the most part, to manipulate a prospective buyer's emotions. Since well done emotional appeals result in more sales than well done appeals to logic, it's perfectly logical to do so.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
I assumed you meant some kind of formal studying... otherwise it seems pretty vague; what constitutes "studying" in your opinion?
Studying a subject systematically until one becomes proficient enough in an area of knowledge to be able to exercise that knowledge in the marketplace. Abraham Lincoln, for example, passed the Illinois Bar without ever having any formal legal education, or even formal secondary or higher education. He studied law on his own, not formally.

My brother-in-law graduated from college in 1982 with a B.S. in Business Administration that included few computer science courses, all of which were based on mainframe systems, and none concerned with networking. He now works as a certified (MS, Cisco, etc.) network administrator. He pursued all of those certifications on his own apart from any formal educational institution.

Now who is making the assumptions? An R7 would need some zooms covering wide angles FOVs at a 1.6x crop. That's a 3rd crop system.
You assume a potential R7 body would be aimed at budget shooters who want a single APS-C body to use as a general purpose camera. That's not what the 7D Mark II was (Rebels filled that role), and it's not what an R7 would be. The RP and its successors are and will continue to be the entry level budget cameras in the RF system.

There's no need for wide angle APS-C RF lenses if the prospective buyer/user base of a niche camera intended for a specific role is primarily interested in using such a body for the "reach" it provides with telephoto lenses. We've had this conversation on various threads here several times. Very few users of 7D MarK II bodies ever put anything wider than a 70-200mm on it. Those who want to shoot wide with an APS-C body tend to stick with the x0D series or the Rebels. The x0D cameras are better general purpose cameras for most people than the 7-Series is.

The only time a lens any wider than 70mm has been on my 7D Mark II was over half a decade ago when I did AFMA calibration with a 24-105mm for future use in a potential emergency situation that has yet to materialize. If I want to go wide angle, or even normal or short telephoto, I use one of my FF bodies.

An M7 would keep someone in the Canon ecosystem rather than leaving, which is the more important thing. I just don't buy the idea that someone unwilling to pay the cost to go FF will want to spend the money for the latest and greatest glass. An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will work great for a reach focused shooter on a budget.
Again, you're assuming those who would buy such a camera would only own that one camera. That's not been my experience at all with pretty much every 7D owner I know. Most also own FF bodies as well or only shoot sports at longer focal lengths. They use the 7D as a specific tool for a specific use case, not as a general purpose camera.

You're also assuming that either an M7 or R7 would be cheaper than an RP or the rumored even cheaper FF RF camera coming in the future. I don't think either an R7 or an M7 would be a budget, entry level camera cheaper than the FF RP and its successors. By the end of the year or early in 2021 we should also have budget conscious non-L 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm RF lenses as well as the existing non-L 24-105mm and non-L 24-240mm.

An M7 with a weathersealed adapter & EF telephoto glass will not work worth squat for a reach focused shooter on a budget who wants to use the RF 600mm and RF 800mm lenses, which are the extreme in budget conscious telephoto reach anywhere within the entire Canon ecosystem. If Canon plans to make an M7 to be a camera for the reach focused shooter on a budget, they should have made the 600/11 and 800/11 as EF-M, not RF, lenses.

From what I've seen the real heartburn for the R7 crowd is wanting to shoot crop but feeling excluded from the RF party. What other explanation is there? Why would a flagship M7 with adapted EF glass be bad for consumers?
Nah, the desire for an R7, rather than an M7, is because most potential R7 buyers are either already in the RF system or plan to be in the future with a FF body in addition to a potential R7 body. They want an R7 as an additional body for a specific use case, not as a single general purpose body.

But that is all beside the point I've been making ad nauseum that you folks refuse to acknowledge:

I'm not talking about what a very small number of consumers, compared to the much larger number of consumers already in the EOS M system, want. I'm talking about what Canon thinks will be more profitable to Canon!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
The issue may be whether the R7 user also owns a FF body. Michael seems to be assuming that most R7 users would also own a FF R body. That is certainly true for me WRT EF bodies but I use my 5D3 body most of the time and the 7D body is very special purpose. If however the user owns only APS-C, then the M system is probably preferable. For one thing, it is much lighter, which is why I bought an M5 and 18-150 lens. Unfortunately, that body does not focus that lens well in dim light. (It does however focus Sigma f/1.4 primes extremely well all of the time.) I want an M7 that focuses as well and runs as fast as an R6 but costs and weighs 30% less.

FWIW, the R5 has a 1.6x crop mode with about 17.8MP, about the same as my 7D.
The R5 also costs over twice the original price of the 7D and 7D Mark II. So there goes the "limited reach on a budget" argument, particularly when compared to something like a 32MP crop sensor in a potential R7 for around $2,000.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
Nicely done. Succinct and to the point. I tip my hat to you sir!
Except that very few to none of those who would like to see an R7 aren't already in the RF system with an EOS R, RP, or R5 body or plan to be with one of those or an EOS R6 body in the near future.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
That's the exact sense I got when I first joined this forum...there were a lot of 7D users pining after that super expensive RF glass.

Now that the R5 is out, which could be used in crop mode for 17 megapickles, that's unsuitable because IT is expensive. Of course the people who I described in the previous paragraph might be a different group than the people who complain the R5 is too expensive to substitute for a 7D, but if THAT is the case Canon can only serve them all be introducing both a high-end EF-M mount camera (note I don't call it an "M") with a robust/weathersealed adapter, AND a crop RF--not necessarily with line of crop R lenses.
Using the R5 in crop mode is also not a real solution to those who use multiple bodies at the same time.

It's usually a FF for the "wide" body and sometimes an APS-C for the "long" body. For the budget guys doing that, an EOS R for the wide body (which does not need to be as fast) and a potential R7 for the "long" body would be the successor to those who might use a 5DIII/IV or even 6DII for a "wide" body and a 7DII for their "long" body. Even if one chooses to use an R5 as their general purpose FF camera, a 32MP R7 to use as a long body would be cheaper and more suitable than a second R5 body cropped to 17MP would.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
I don't really see how owning a FF R body changes the equation. If someone can afford a bag of big RF whites they can probably afford an R5 too. If they can afford a FF R body and a hypothetical R7 they could just replace both with an R5. I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body. Etc. etc. So I just can't piece together a scenario where an R7 is better than a reach focused kit built around EF glass for someone on a budget, or an R5 with long RF glass for someone with deep pockets.
You're still thinking in terms of a general purpose body owner who only has a single body. That's not who the vast majority of 7D users were, and not who would be interested in an R7.

The usefulness of the 7D Mark II for the sports/action shooters was that it could work with a 70-200/2.8 under a lot of youth/high school/small college lights that would have required a 300/2.8 with a FF body (and *another* body with a 70-200 for when the action got too close for the 300mm). Many of those users also have a 5-Series body that they used as their "wide" body while using the 7D as their "long" body.

5D Mark IV + 24-105 and 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 IS II = $8,000

5D Mark III + 24-105 and 5D Mark IV + 70-200/2.8 IS II and 5D Mark IV + 300/2.8 IS II = $20,000
Add another $2,500 to use a 1D X II with the 300/2.8.

For the youth/high school/small college sports shooter, the difference between $8K and $20K in gear is the difference between making more than you spend doing it and spending more than you can make doing it.

For the birders it is a bit different. But even there, the difference between using a 7DII at $1,800 plus a 400/4 IS DO at $6,900 versus using a 1D X Mark II at $6,000 plus a 600/4 at $13,000 is also significant in terms of cost ($8.7K vs $19K ). That $10K will pay for a few more nice trips to chase exotic birds.

"I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body."

I can't see anyone being able to use an M7 with their budget RF600 and RF800 lenses, either.

Or using a telephoto lens and a wide/normal lens on the same body simultaneously, as many 2 or even 3 body shooters do.

I also can't see how the R5 cropped to 17MP is somehow the equivalent of a 32MP or so R7.
 
Last edited:

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,870
1,732
You're still thinking in terms of a general purpose body owner who only has a single body. That's not who the vast majority of 7D users were, and not who would be interested in an R7.

The usefulness of the 7D Mark II for the sports/action shooters was that it could work with a 70-200/2.8 under a lot of youth/high school/small college lights that would have required a 300/2.8 with a FF body (and *another* body with a 70-200 for when the action got too close for the 300mm). Many of those users also have a 5-Series body that they used as their "wide" body while using the 7D as their "long" body.

5D Mark IV + 24-105 and 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 IS II = $8,000

5D Mark III + 24-105 and 5D Mark IV + 70-200/2.8 IS II and 5D Mark IV + 300/2.8 IS II = $20,000
Add another $2,500 to use a 1D X II with the 300/2.8.

For the youth/high school/small college sports shooter, the difference between $8K and $20K in gear is the difference between making more than you spend doing it and spending more than you can make doing it.

For the birders it is a bit different. But even there, the difference between using a 7DII at $1,800 plus a 400/4 IS DO at $6,900 versus using a 1D X Mark II at $6,000 plus a 600/4 at $13,000 is also significant in terms of cost ($8.7K vs $19K ). That $10K will pay for a few more nice trips to chase exotic birds.

"I can't see anyone buying wide/normal RF FF glass to use on a crop body."

I can't see anyone being able to use an M7 with their budget RF600 and RF800 lenses, either.

Or using a telephoto lens and a wide/normal lens on the same body simultaneously, as many 2 or even 3 body shooters do.

I also can't see how the R5 cropped to 17MP is somehow the equivalent of a 32MP or so R7.
Why are you assuming that these folks who had two bodies in the EF system wouldn't be happier with ONE body that could fulfill both roles under the RF system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
So again, what constitutes "studying" marketing? It just seems like Michael threw that line out to discredit anyone who disagreed with him.
Actually, what I *asked* was, "Have you ever studied marketing?" in reply to a suggestion that Canon is about to change directions with regard to what Canon's marketing department has carefully and consistently guided what the EOS M series is in the eight years it has been on the market. I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

You kind of contradicted yourself here. For starters the camera industry is in freefall. Very little is selling very well. But given that they just made a new EF-S body, what makes you think it's on its way out? Also, why is it so improbable or irrational for Canon to expand the M line up, rather than create a 3rd crop system in a shrinking market? I think a lot of people are emotionally wed to this concept of an R7 but can't make much of a case for it beyond repeating their wishes.
No one expecting an R7 (or something more like an R90) thinks it will necessitate a full line of RF-S lenses. That's not the kind of camera it would be. Canon's budget entry level models in the RF mount will continue to be FF models. So will their budget RF lenses.

The EOS M system, on the other hand, is a fairly narrow system aimed at a lot of people who only want a single camera and not very many lenses that are compact, lightweight, and affordable (and who are not interested in in an arsenal of cameras and lenses that each have specific niche tasks they are designed to do). That's who Canon designs and markets the EOS M system to and that's who, for the most part, buys them.The few enthusiasts in North America and Western Europe who buy EOS M cameras are far from the typical EOS M buyer in the Pacific Rim and emerging countries like India where the vast majority of EOS M cameras are sold.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
A fictitious dialogue but based on stuff I've read here:

R7 monger: I want to put all that awesome, expensive RF glass to use on a crop body! I don't want to have to process huge files!
Me: Well now you have an R5 which will give you access to that RF glass and has a crop mode that gives you 17 MP. It's just as good as a hypothetical R7, maybe even better
R7 monger: Oh, but that's too expensive!
Me: So you can afford all that $2000+ fancy glass, but you cant afford an extra $2000 for the body!
If you are referring to me, that's not what I've been saying at all. I don't lust after using any of the high end and expensive wide angle and normal RF glass on a potential R7. Why would I do that when the RP (and now, even the EOS R) is available for less than any R7 or R90 would cost?

I don't even lust after an R7 to use with the RF 70-200/2.8.

What I would most like to see is a 7D Mark III in EF mount, but it's been fairly clear for a while that is not going to happen.

What I keep repeating and no one wants to hear, apparently because it's not near as fun or easy to disagree with and argue against, is that if Canon is working on a 7D (or even 90D) kind of mirrorless body aimed at current 7D users, it seems to me to fit more into the overall planned breadth of the EOS R system with many specialized lenses and a few specialized bodies (EOS Ra, for example) for niche use cases than it fits within Canon's much more narrowly defined EOS M system.

EOS M seems to be based more on marketing to a more numerous type of camera buyer who all fit the same particular profile.

The EOS R system, on the other hand, is shaping up to be a much broader system aimed at a more limited number of buyers who want a lot more than a single compact, lightweight, affordable general use camera. They want specific cameras and lenses for specific use cases.

Now of course that dialogue doesn't address the person who has a bunch of EF glass he's using on his 7D, and is on a budget. Until very recently many people in this group had no conceivable use for any of the RF glass out there because they are using the crop sensor to add "reach" to their long telephoto, and there was no long telephoto R. (And many aren't interested in the f/11s.) That's a different market, methinks, and that person would do well on a high-end, solidly built and weathersealed EF-M mount camera with an included robust and weather sealed adapter. He can't afford the fancy RF glass, and he likely can't afford an R5, but he probably COULD afford this sort of camera. And Canon COULD come out with economical native long telephoto lenses for this body, down the road.
But what she can't do is use those new budget telephoto RF 600/800 lenses on that EF-M mount body! Those lenses already exist right now! If Canon were planning to make an "M7" body for the 7D crowd, they should have made the RF600/800 f/11 lenses in EF-M instead of RF mount.

It also seems to me that the type of buyer who would even be interested in an "M7" type of camera to use with long glass would more likely be the type of buyer for which Canon has created the RF system than the type of buyer for which Canon has created the EOS M system and made it the best selling mirrorless interchangeable camera system on the planet. If it's an M7, there's nowhere upstream for Canon to lead that buyer.

The EOS M system is all about selling cameras to folks who are not likely to be led upstream any time soon. They're the "one and done" type of buyer, but there are a lot more of them than there are buyers who want a closet full of cameras and lenses for different use cases.

If it's an R7, there's all kinds of future sales potential in it for Canon from the type of buyer who would be interested in a 7D replacement.

Yes, the initial RF lenses were eye-wateringly expensive, but they are now beginning to add more budget oriented lenses to the RF line, just as they have now added more upmarket bodies to the initial EOS R And EOS RP bodies with lower capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zim

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
Why are you assuming that these folks who had two bodies in the EF system wouldn't be happier with ONE body that could fulfill both roles under the RF system?
Because we often use both at the same time! A 7DII + 70-200/2.8 and a 5DIV with a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,730
2,724
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Using the R5 in crop mode is also not a real solution to those who use multiple bodies at the same time.

It's usually a FF for the "wide" body and sometimes an APS-C for the "long" body. For the budget guys doing that, an EOS R for the wide body (which does not need to be as fast) and a potential R7 for the "long" body would be the successor to those who might use a 5DIII/IV or even 6DII for a "wide" body and a 7DII for their "long" body. Even if one chooses to use an R5 as their general purpose FF camera, a 32MP R7 to use as a long body would be cheaper and more suitable than a second R5 body cropped to 17MP would.
An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible.

If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,870
1,732
An EOS R for a wide body and an R5 for a crop body might be the most economical and certainly the most flexible.

If I need the extra reach, I can use the R5 in crop mode and if I don't, I can use it in standard mode. Also, with the R5 I could leave it in standard mode while shooting so as to give me more area to compose and find the subject and then crop to 17mp later.
That latter would be handy too if one finds one's self wishing it were a 1.5 crop because the subject was just a teeny, tiny bit too large to fit in 1.6, e.g., a BIF whose wingtip went outside the box at the exact instant the shutter tripped.

If I understand it, the R5 crop mode really does NOT record anything outside the crop area, unlike the 1:1, 4:3, and 16:9 ratios, where the entire frame is written to the raw file but the JPG (if you have jpegs turned on) is cropped to the desired ratio.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,730
2,724
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I tried, I really tried, to drop this conversation...but...

What I keep repeating and no one wants to hear, apparently because it's not near as fun or easy to disagree with and argue against, is that if Canon is working on a 7D (or even 90D) kind of mirrorless body aimed at current 7D users, it seems to me to fit more into the overall planned breadth of the EOS R system with many specialized lenses and a few specialized bodies (EOS Ra, for example) for niche use cases than it fits within Canon's much more narrowly defined EOS M system.
I think people hear your argument. They just don't find it convincing.

It rests on your definition of what the EOS-M system is and presumes that the EOS-M system can only ever be what you think it is.

My counter argument is that it's Canon's line of cameras and lenses and they can do anything they want with it.

Like you, my personal preference would be a 7DIII. But, I'm simply more willing to entertain the notion that it is at least a 50/50 proposition that Canon, if they ever again make a high-end sports/wildlife focused APS-C camera, will chose to keep the APS-C and Full Frame lines separate.

You completely reject the notion that there is value in keeping the APS-C line and the full-frame line separate. I happen to think that there is at least some merit in such a decision and that there is at least a 50/50 chance that Canon may go that route.

Much of your argument is also based on what lenses Canon currently makes for the RF mount. But, Canon can also make whatever lenses they want. If they decide to make a long telephoto lens in the M mount, they can do it. Having lenses in the RF mount doesn't preclude them from making lenses in other mounts. And, given the low prices for some of those new RF mount lenses, it doesn't seem like retail price would be a barrier to offering similar lenses in an M mount.

Finally, I'm not even sure if Canon would make an APS-C R7 at a price point that would be reminiscent of the 7D series. The 7DII and the 5DIII came out before Canon changed it's sensor fabrication to on-chip ADC. With their more modern sensor fabrication, the cost of a full-frame sensor seems to have significantly dropped (based on the pricing of the EOS R and RP.) Could they make a feature-packed R7 at a price point significantly below the R5? Would they? Would they be better off putting those features into an M7 that sits at the top of the M lineup with no ceiling, instead of somewhere in the middle of the R lineup? Would that increase sales, because it would appeal to M buyers who want to own the best in the line, rather than R buyers who want a second body? Only Canon knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReflexVE

Czardoom

EOS 90D
Jan 27, 2020
134
315
Just a personal opinion based on owning or having owned R and M cameras and EF, RF and M lenses. I have no idea what Canon might do, nor what they should do.

For me, based on my experience, putting out a crop R series camera as a 7D successor has the following benefits:

Larger body closer in size, weight, button layout to the 7D.
Much easier to use existing EF telephoto lenses on a larger camera with bigger grip.
Users can buy RF lenses and use them.
Canon need not create any APC-S line of lenses - patents already exist for lenses that would be fine for both FF and crop, such as a 17-70mm lens.

Drawbacks of creating an R series crop camera:

Having both FF and APS-C cameras in the same system might cause some confusion.

Advantages of an M series successor to the 7D:

A clear defining line between their FF and crop cameras.

Drawbacks of creating an M series successor to the 7D:

Possible confusion at having an M body that would need to be (in my opinion) twice the size and weight of all the other M models.
The need to create M series telephoto lenses
RF lenses will not work on the camera

If they decide to keep the body small to be consistent with the other M cameras:

Ergonomically awful (base on my experience) to use almost any EF lens on a tiny camera. Personally, I found even relatively small or light lenses such as the old EF 28-105 or the EF-S 55-250mm to be uncomfortable to the point where I sold those lenses when I got the M-5. I found only M series lenses were a good match with the M series camera.

Ergonomically awful to create any telephoto lens larger than the 55-200 that exist now, making it ergonomically awful for any wildlife, sports or any of the major uses that 7D owners now use their cameras.

If the target consumer for the M series camera is someone looking for the smallest, lightest system, good for tourists, casual users and vloggers, then putting out an M series successor to the 7D makes no sense. My guess is that a large segment of this target consumer group won't care if the camera is crop or FF - or even knows what the difference is. To them, camera size is what the differentiating factor is - not sensor size.

If the target consumer for a 7D successor is a pro or high level enthusiast looking for a camera (and lenses) with extra reach for wildlife and sports, then an R series crop camera makes much more sense, in my opinion. Mainly, because Canon already has lenses for that consumer and will no doubt develop more in the RF line.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
So put a timeline on it... when do you see Canon discontinuing EF-S production/sales/support? Why do your "beliefs" hold more weight than the release of the 90D? Even in the market's abysmal state Canon is still selling hundreds of thousands if not millions of EF-S bodies. Companies aren't infallible or omniscient but I'd be curious to hear what you know or see that Canon doesn't.
Notice this rumor comes along just short of one year after the announcement/introduction of the 90D. I think Canon hoped the 90D would attract a lot of 7D Mark II users. It doesn't seem to have attracted many of them. The 90D was not exactly the hottest selling camera in Canon's non-Rebel lineup, even before the R5 and R6.

Canon may be rethinking their strategy re: keeping 7D Mark II users in the Canon fold.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,156
1,849
Expansion of a system's range <> massive change for the range. Right now, I think Canon has a big hole in the $1000-1500 price range. The RP is not terrible, but it's not competitive outside of sensor size. The 90D is good, but DSLRs are increasingly niche. The M6II is a start, but it needs an integrated EVF and IBIS.... nearly everyone else has that in its price range. An R7 with IBIS would probably cost little less than an R6. And again there is the basic kit lens problem. Does Canon make a crappy 15-xx variable aperture kit zoom or only do an F/2.8 L zoom? Again if someone has the money for big RF gla$$ are they really going to have much heartburn over buying an R5?

There's much less risk with the M7. There's already a big captive market for a premium zoom for M mount so that's much lower risk. It just makes sense. Again I think the whole R7 thing comes down to 7D shooters wanting to feel heard and included in the RF mount situation. I haven't heard any real objective or functional advantages of an R7..... just a lot of subjective projections and voluntary choices hinged around stuff like "futureproofing".

RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM is the FF equivalent of an APS-C 15-65mm crappy kit lens. Whether Canon makes an R7 or not, the EOS RP and its successors will be the entry level into the RF system.

Not all RF glass is the premium L glass with eye watering prices. By the end of this year or early 2021 we will have non-L 35, 50, 85 primes along with the 24-105 and 24-240 zooms. The only one not currently available is the RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM. Oh yeah, and we already have those non-L 600/800mm telephoto lenses for less than $1K.

The EOS R currently floats just above your $1,500 price point depending on instant rebates.

Based on the comparative prices of the 6D/6D Mark II and the 7D/7D Mark II, an R7 would come in slightly cheaper than the R6. Probably right around $2K.

The M market is big, but most of the owners in that system have no desire for a premium zoom lens or Canon would have already offered one in the 8+ years the EOS M system has existed. The only conceivable explanation for why Canon has not offered high end lenses in the EOS M system over the past eight years is because Canon does not want to. Maybe that will change in the future, but we've seen no indication that is the case at this point. All of the high end lenses released since early 2018 - the 70-200mm f/2.8 I refresh (which was barely an update and more a revision) and the two Big Whites (400/600 which were total redesigns) - are in the RF mount. There was plenty of time to release premium EF-M lenses between 2012 and 2018 when the RF lenses started dropping.