Canon Adds EOS R50 and EOS R8 to the Growing EOS R Mirrorless Camera System

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,608
4,180
The Netherlands
But your earlier comment - as well as comments from several others in other forums - suggests that R50 users should really stick with RF glass rather than invest in RF-S. I think Canon would rather have them do that, too, which makes me seriously question their commitment to RF-S. (They could surprise me, though. They surprised me with the R50 - I didn't think they would actually put out a lower-priced camera that would likely cannibalize R10 sales, but they did.)
I'm highly sceptical of how committed Canon is to RF-S. Canon did release some surprisingly nice crop lenses, like the EF-S60mm macro, EF-M 11-22mm and all EF-M primes. But seeing how the EF-M system was managed by Canon, I really get why people want to see a roadmap and why Canon doesn't want to publish one!
I suspect an R5II and R1 in the same year (2024) will take up all the attention at Canon, so hopefully we'll see "all the crop" this year.
 
Upvote 0

kmrahe

EOS M50 Mark II
Feb 2, 2023
67
49
But RF-S is smaller, lighter, and cheaper.
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,156
12,979
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
An adapter to mount RF lenses on an M body would need to be just 2 mm thick, which is very problematic from a practical standpoint. As for why Canon didn't stick with EOS M for APS-C and EOS R for FF, I thought they would but Canon knows the market better than anyone here, and obviously they thought it would be profitable for them to make APS-C EOS R cameras and lenses.

Given the existence of lenses like the RF 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11, I can see the logic of crop users wanting to access those lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,608
4,180
The Netherlands
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
EDIT: I read it the wrong way around. The point about needing optics still stands, though.

The registration distance is 2mm apart between RF (20mm) and EF-M (18mm), so the EF-M lenses would need to be that distance inside the RF mount. I'll let a picture show why that won't work:

IMG_3316.jpeg

This can be worked around by putting optics in the adapter, but at those point it will be huge, heavy and expensive (even for RF standards).
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,156
12,979
The registration distance is 2mm apart between RF (20mm) and EF-M (18mm), so the EF-M lenses would need to be that distance inside the RF mount. I'll let a picture show why that won't work:
You're correct, but the suggestion was mounting RF lenses on M bodies, not mounting M lenses on RF bodies ("EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras.").
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,608
4,180
The Netherlands
You're correct, but the suggestion was mounting RF lenses on M bodies, not mounting M lenses on RF bodies ("EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras.").
I indeed read that the wrong way around!
 
Upvote 0

kmrahe

EOS M50 Mark II
Feb 2, 2023
67
49
Canon knows the market better than anyone here, and obviously they thought it would be profitable for them to make APS-C EOS R cameras and lenses.
True, but effectively the market is still going to be pretty segmented, as the ability to use RF-S glass on a full-frame body seems only half a step above gimmicky to me. (That is, if Canon actually produces a number of RF-S lenses on par with what they did for EF-M.)
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,608
4,180
The Netherlands
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
Try #2 :)

Mechanical interference already causes a more than 5mm wide gap, which more than the 2mm required for the registration distances to work out.

IMG_3318.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,099
2,417
I'm just looking at the likelihood that the R50 will ever be a complete replacement for the M50 considering the latter's combination of compact size, moderate price, lens choices and quality and capabilities of the body and EF-M lenses. At this point I think it's questionable.
Canon actually said that it can't be as well.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,099
2,417
If you're going to buy RF-S lenses, why not EF-M lenses instead? I don't mean buy lenses that your camera can't use. I mean why didn't Canon simply keep EF-M for APS-C cameras and focus only on full-frame for RF lenses, and offer an adapter to use RF glass on M-mount cameras, perhaps adding some pins to EF-M to let newer bodies support the new RF glass features? It seems like that would have made much more sense all around.
There was no equivalent to the RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11, RF 800 f/11, and RF 100-500 L on EF-M.
Those lenses are pretty popular with R10 and R7 owners.
Your point is fair with the R50 but Canon seems to be hoping R50 users will upgrade to the R10 and R7 at some point.
At a minimum, the EF 50 f/1.8 is very popular with Canon APS-C DSLR users.
I suspect the RF 50 f/1.8 will be just as popular with R50 users.
 
Upvote 0

kmrahe

EOS M50 Mark II
Feb 2, 2023
67
49
There was no equivalent to the RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11, RF 800 f/11, and RF 100-500 L on EF-M.
Those lenses are pretty popular with R10 and R7 owners.
Your point is fair with the R50 but Canon seems to be hoping R50 users will upgrade to the R10 and R7 at some point.
At a minimum, the EF 50 f/1.8 is very popular with Canon APS-C DSLR users.
I suspect the RF 50 f/1.8 will be just as popular with R50 users.
A lot of it boils down to how many people are buying at the low end for price and how many really value the small size? I got into the M50 for price and capabilities but have grown to appreciate its compactness, both in terms of the body and EF-M lenses, so that is definitely something I would look for if I ever got another camera (which probably won't happen for at least a decade or more barring some catastrophe with my current equipment). I do agree that you need to offer access to bigger/higher-end lenses for those who want to go there without upgrading their body, too. And I as well have the EF 50 f/1.8, which I was just barely able to squeeze with the adapter into the case I use for my M50, which also carries three EF-M lenses and several accessories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,156
12,979
True, but effectively the market is still going to be pretty segmented, as the ability to use RF-S glass on a full-frame body seems only half a step above gimmicky to me. (That is, if Canon actually produces a number of RF-S lenses on par with what they did for EF-M.)
Sure, and it seems Canon wants believes the segmentation will be profitable for them. That's really at the core of their decision, they're a for-profit company, after all.

I agree that not many will use RF-S glass on FF bodies, but the real point is that people with APS-C RF bodies will be able to buy RF lenses for them, and that may facilitate their eventual upgrade to a FF R body, a path unavailable to EOS M owners.
 
Upvote 0

kmrahe

EOS M50 Mark II
Feb 2, 2023
67
49
Sure, and it seems Canon wants believes the segmentation will be profitable for them. That's really at the core of their decision, they're a for-profit company, after all.
It really boils down to how much revenue will they fail to capture if they don't offer RF-S glass because people don't want the larger and more expensive RF glass vs. how much they will fail to capture by selling RF-S glass where that investment becomes a deterrent to upgrading from an APS-C body to a full frame down the road? I don't know if they have that all figured out yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,156
12,979
It really boils down to how much revenue will they fail to capture if they don't offer RF-S glass because people don't want the larger and more expensive RF glass vs. how much they will fail to capture by selling RF-S glass where that investment becomes a deterrent to upgrading from an APS-C body to a full frame down the road? I don't know if they have that all figured out yet.
Given their experience with EF / EF-S and the fact that they became the market leader 20 years ago and continue to dominate the market today, I'm pretty sure they have things figured out fairly well.
 
Upvote 0

kmrahe

EOS M50 Mark II
Feb 2, 2023
67
49
Given their experience with EF / EF-S and the fact that they became the market leader 20 years ago and continue to dominate the market today, I'm pretty sure they have things figured out fairly well.
I suppose they do, but it's still far from clear to the consumer what those things will be. e.g. All of the rumors about upcoming RF-S lens releases/announcements have been wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,608
4,180
The Netherlands
Given their experience with EF / EF-S and the fact that they became the market leader 20 years ago and continue to dominate the market today, I'm pretty sure they have things figured out fairly well.
That's sidestepping the question a bit. You're saying "Canon has been very, very successful so far", which isn't really answering "How much revenue will they fail to capture?". Hypothetically speaking and making up all the numbers out of thin air, Canon could gain 0.5% more market share by offering more RF-S, and they could have (in future hindsight, still inside the hypothetical) accurately predicted that but decided on a different course, e.g. less market share, more profit. Or they refuse to believe they can grow by introducing more RF-S lenses.

It's impossible to prove a negative, so we can never know how much money is being left on the table. Slightly related: during CP+ Fuji stated, unprompted, that after opening up the X mount, they saw a higher than expected increase in sales for both bodies and first party lenses. But that's in the "expensive APS-C" segment, which Canon hasn't been targetting so far.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,156
12,979
That's sidestepping the question a bit. You're saying "Canon has been very, very successful so far", which isn't really answering "How much revenue will they fail to capture?". Hypothetically speaking and making up all the numbers out of thin air, Canon could gain 0.5% more market share by offering more RF-S, and they could have (in future hindsight, still inside the hypothetical) accurately predicted that but decided on a different course, e.g. less market share, more profit. Or they refuse to believe they can grow by introducing more RF-S lenses.
Anyone can play the woudla-shoulda-coulda game, there's really no answer to the question of,"How much revenue will they fail to capture?," by doing X or not doing Y. In this case, I suspect the line of questioning (how much revenue will they fail to capture if they don't offer RF-S glass) falls into the category of many comments/arguments made on this forum – namely, that Canon is doing or not doing something that an individual disagrees with, and thus Canon is probably (or definitely, according to some) making a poor business decision. In this case, @kmrahe personally wants more RF-S lenses, and is phrasing that desire in such a way as to imply that Canon is losing revenue because they're not doing what he personally wants. I suspect the true answer is that Canon has decided to prioritize other lenses at this point, for reasons that make sense to them. That's where the 20 years of market leadership comes into play – history suggests they are usually right in these matters.

Maybe it's as simple as R&D resources being finite, and assuming FF lenses are more profitable it makes sense to concentrate resources on them.

However, consider the relevant historical comparison:

When the M system launched in 2012, it did so with only two EF-M lenses (but also with adapter compatibility to the full array of EF and EF-S lenses). They added one lens each year for the next three. Over the next several years, the M system grew to become the globally best-selling MILC line, eventually comprising ~17% of all ILCs sold.

When APS-C R cameras launched in 2022, they did so with only two RF-S lenses (but also with direct compatibility with nearly 30 RF lenses and adapter compatibility to the full array of EF and EF-S lenses). So far this year, they've released one more RF-S lens.

Sound familiar? Time will tell of the APS-C R bodies rise to the prominence of the EOS M line. Ror the month of February the R10 + RF-S 18-150 kit was at #2 on BCN's list of best-selling ILCs in Japan, which bodes well as an indication of the future direction for APS-C EOS R cameras.
 
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
998
1,042
However, consider the relevant historical comparison:

When the M system launched in 2012, it did so with only two EF-M lenses (but also with adapter compatibility to the full array of EF and EF-S lenses). They added one lens each year for the next three. Over the next several years, the M system grew to become the globally best-selling MILC line, eventually comprising ~17% of all ILCs sold.

When APS-C R cameras launched in 2022, they did so with only two RF-S lenses (but also with direct compatibility with nearly 30 RF lenses and adapter compatibility to the full array of EF and EF-S lenses). So far this year, they've released one more RF-S lens.
I think this is the answer. When the R bodies launched there was criticism (and still is) on the lack of native RF mount FF lenses, and less-expensive lenses. But Canon's very open strategy was to encourage the use of the full range of EF lenses. To do so they put out an enticing range of adaptors (including one with filter capacity), and the end result was that the EF lenses worked as well (if not better) on RF bodies. In this case, they'll be working on the assumption that a lot of the range of APS-C RF body buyers who want more than the kit lenses will be happy to adapt FF RF lenses, or possibly their own existing EF or EF-S lens collection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,099
2,417
Fuji stated, unprompted, that after opening up the X mount, they saw a higher than expected increase in sales for both bodies and first party lenses. But that's in the "expensive APS-C" segment, which Canon hasn't been targetting so far.
A lot of those APS-C lenses are about the same cost, size, and weight as Canon full-frame lenses.
 
Upvote 0