Canon will release an APS-C RF mount camera(s) later in 2022 [CR3]

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
299
204
I think the popularity of the M series - and the continued popularity of the lowest end DSLRs - shows that the camera industry is not driven by innovation and creativity for the vast majority of camera buyers. As so often happens, forum users think they represent the majority of camera buyers. But it is not so, they are a small minority and can't seem to come to grips with that.

I think, quite frankly, for the camera industry to survive in the next 10 to 15 years, they will have to accept the fact that innovation and creativity will reach a point of diminishing returns. We are seeing a spurt of innovation as camera makers are still producing early generations of mirrorless cameras - DSLRs had already reached a point where each new generation was really just a minor upgrade. The same thing will happen to mirrorless. Will more FPS really be a pro rather than a con once you have reached 30 FPS as we are reaching now? DR is already at a point where there have been no really noticeable improvements in 4 or 5 years. Tracking with eye AF has gotten to a point where birders are getting over 90% of shots in focus. Can't get much higher I'm afraid.

Yes, there will always be a segment of buyers who will want the greatest and the latest, but the popularity of the M series and the entry-level DSLRs - despite the dominance of smart phones - seems to tell us that price, ease of use and simplicity of the system or device are still the main selling points. As smart phones continue to improve that may change, but the vast majority of people can not afford - nor will think that it is money well spent, to buy a camera costing more than, let's say, $800, and more lenses that cover the focal range they need. I consider myself to be a serious enthusiast who has made some sales with my photography - and even I would never consider buying a prime lens, for example, when I have all the focal lengths I need covered with my 3 zoom lenses. While I am not an M owner now, when I was, the 11-22mm and the 18-150mm were all I needed. I think most M users would also see no need to buy any more than 2 or maybe 3 lenses. So, why in the world would Canon make more lenses for a system that very few consumers would want? Just to please forum dweller and reviewers and show them the system is "alive?"
This might not be what many photography enthusiasts want to hear, but I suspect what Czardoom has stated above is the truth.

It looks like most camera sales are at the lower end of the market. Entry level DSLRs and mirrorless cameras which are popular with beginners, social media fans and vloggers looking for something better than smartphones for photos and video.

A whole lot more people in the past would have simply bought cheap point-and-shoot cameras, which have been displaced to a greater extent by smartphone cameras. That's most likely the explanation for the 90% reduction or whatever the figure is in the camera market.

Professionals are like tradesmen, they usually use the tools of their trade for quite a while, buy new tools when they need them, and upgrade if there is an obvious cost-benefit advantage to their business.

The internet influencers, vloggers and forums may give a false impression of who is driving the market. Passion doesn't equate to actual market numbers necessarily. The enthusiasts worldwide buy expensive gear often, seeking the latest and greatest, but they're a subset of the photography world, which is a subset of the whole population.

From Hobbies & interests in the United States 2021 | Statista - https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997050/hobbies-and-interests-in-the-us it appears that 20% of people surveyed in the US identified photography as their hobby, and it ranks 13th, below gardening, which is 11th in the list.

What percentage of this 20% are using smartphones, entry-level cameras, mid-tier prosumer gear or top-tier professional gear?
Of the portion using mid-tier prosumer gear or top-tier professional gear, what percentage are using Sony, Nikon or Canon?
If we slice the pie each time, to an ever thinner slice, that last Canon slice represents the group that we're a smaller subset of, because not all (probably very few) pro photogs using Canon gear would be on internet forums. If we used Set Theory to represent this as a Venn diagram, I suspect that Canon users across all forums collectively wouldn't represent a large percentage of the market.

h2021.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,232
1,547
You seem to be confusing sales results with actual product development and innovation. It's been over a year since the last body, the only slightly improved M50 mk.II, was released, and three years since the last EF-M lens was released. And in the almost ten years of the M series, Canon has only produced eight lenses total. I'm not sure how that counts in your book as something other than neglect.
In my book, that counts as "serving the target audience".

I might be a little biased, though, because I am not a part of the target audience for the M series and, naturally, would prefer Canon to spend its R&D money on something more useful to me.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,588
14,327
This is a niche forum for those mainly interested in high level camera gear of the Canon variety and what it can do. So, don't complain if that is what is discussed here and interests most. Even if Canon isn't interested, people posting here are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,182
This is a niche forum for those mainly interested in high level camera gear of the Canon variety and what it can do. So, don't complain if that is what is discussed here and interests most. Even if Canon isn't interested, people posting here are.
The complaint is that some people here have deluded themselves into believing they represent the beating heart of the camera industry.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users

Deleted

7D2
Sep 30, 2021
111
337
The complaint is that some people here have deluded themselves into believing they represent the beating heart of the camera industry.
While that may be the case, I am sure the bodies are only a tiny profit for Canon. The lenses and accessories I would guess are where the lions share of profit is. So again as a guess it is the mid-high end buyers that will generate the profit. An R body, spare batteries, EF adapter and a load of RF lenses is what many new R system users will buy.
 

John Wilde

EOS 90D
Jan 2, 2021
196
331
Like I said, a shell game. Makes me wonder if it’s even profitable, else why bury the results in different aggregates?

Fuji basically came out and admitted their digital cameras aren’t profitable, but they keep making them for ‘historical and societal reasons’.
In their financial documents, Canon and Nikon report and forecast unit sales of their interchangeable-lens cameras. Sony never does.

Sony financial documents include a chart with the title "Unit Sales of Key Products". Those products are PlayStation4, PlayStation5, and TVs. Cameras aren't important enough to be considered a key product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

wyotex43n

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 24, 2016
76
59
I used to want a 500mm f/5.6, and loved using the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. The RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has changed all that for me, but maybe not for loads of nature photographers. It has all the advantages of a zoom, can be used for close-up work of down to a metre or so, is just about as sharp as that prime for the cost of 2/3rds of stop, and is of similar weight and cheaper. If I get a prime now, it will have to have something different going for it, like an ultralight 500 f/4 or 600 f/5.6.
I too wonder what lens would serve me better. I am shooting my ef 100-400 on the R5. I sometimes put the 1.4 extender on and other than driving the iso and noise up I am happy with the results. The RF 100-500 would be a cleaner solution. If not that what? The big whites are out of my price range. What about a 500 DO with a built in 1.4 extender? Or 200-600 f5.6. Price would probably still be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,182
While that may be the case, I am sure the bodies are only a tiny profit for Canon. The lenses and accessories I would guess are where the lions share of profit is. So again as a guess it is the mid-high end buyers that will generate the profit. An R body, spare batteries, EF adapter and a load of RF lenses is what many new R system users will buy.
Don't confuse margin with total profit. If you'd prefer selling 100,000 widgets with a $5 margin over selling a million widgets with a $1 margin, your company will soon be out of business.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,588
14,327
I too wonder what lens would serve me better. I am shooting my ef 100-400 on the R5. I sometimes put the 1.4 extender on and other than driving the iso and noise up I am happy with the results. The RF 100-500 would be a cleaner solution. If not that what? The big whites are out of my price range. What about a 500 DO with a built in 1.4 extender? Or 200-600 f5.6. Price would probably still be an issue.
It depends how you shoot. If you are strong and not using the lens so much on hikes, then a 200-600 f/5.6 could be good, if it didn't break the bank. If you are the average person who wants a very high quality zoom and can go on a hike, then the RF 100-500 won't break your back. A 500/5.6 DO with a built in TC would be interesting, and you could use it with an external TC, and probably be very pricey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Deleted

7D2
Sep 30, 2021
111
337
Don't confuse margin with total profit. If you'd prefer selling 100,000 widgets with a $5 margin over selling a million widgets with a $1 margin, your company will soon be out of business.
The point is, all the small accessories add up quickly. Many who buy bottom end camers get it as a kit and often buy no more. As we go u- the chain the number off accessories increases. It would be very interesting to see some stats, but we probably never will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,182
The point is, all the small accessories add up quickly. Many who buy bottom end camers get it as a kit and often buy no more. As we go u- the chain the number off accessories increases. It would be very interesting to see some stats, but we probably never will.
One data point to consider is that ~90% of ILCs produced are APS-C (as of about a year ago, maybe that’s changed a bit). I agree that most entry level buyers get the camera and 1-2 kit lenses and that’s it (until the camera breaks, then if they buy another it’s the current entry level model). The point is, those buyers far outnumber us CR members who often have a few bodies, several lenses and a range of other accessories.

The pyramid has a very wide base. But, that base is being eroded by smartphones. It makes sense for Canon to try and push people up-market into higher margin products. To me, that’s another argument against an APS-C RF mount camera and a (small) range of cheaper lenses to go with it. Better to launch an $800 FF EOS R, which paired with a 24-105 non-L would only be $100 more than the top-end M body + lens, and get more people into the higher-margin FF ecosystem.

That’s one area where Sony was smart (or lucky to be driven there by the 800-lb Canon gorilla entering the APS-C MILC room) – an emphasis on higher margin products more insulated from the smartphone competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mangobutter

EOS 90D
Dec 11, 2014
187
96
www.e46mango.com
It's extremely clear that if Canon intends to be the mirrorless leader, they absolutely need a cropped RF-mount. (OG EF-M user here since launch day of the original M) Fun system, but it was really a half-assed experiment were Canon was testing the waters more or less when mirrorless crop was all the rage. It's not a big deal to scrap EF-M since there's not that many lenses out for it. Besides Nikon scrapped a crop system before too so it should seem not out of the realm of possibility. Sony also scrapped its full frame SLR mount too. Sometimes you try something and it's not the right direction to go in.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,182
It's extremely clear that if Canon intends to be the mirrorless leader, they absolutely need a cropped RF-mount.
Why is that, exactly? Maybe all they have to do is wait. In 2020, Canon had 30% of the MILC market and Sony had 35%. Compared to 2019, Canon gained 6% and Sony lost 7%, i.e. Canon gained 13% on Sony. They need less than half that gain in 2021 to become the MILC market leader. Given that Canon has close to 50% of the total ILC market, double Sony’s , it’s actually quite possible that Canon is already the mirrorless leader, we just don’t know it yet.

OG EF-M user here since launch day of the original M) Fun system, but it was really a half-assed experiment were Canon was testing the waters more or less when mirrorless crop was all the rage.
APS-C is ~90% of the ILC market. Mirrorless is ~60% of the ILC market. Mirrorless crop is still ‘all the rage’ as far as people actually buying cameras, and that’s not likely to change.


It's not a big deal to scrap EF-M since there's not that many lenses out for it.
Besides Nikon scrapped a crop system before too so it should seem not out of the realm of possibility. Sony also scrapped its full frame SLR mount too. Sometimes you try something and it's not the right direction to go in.
How many times do I have to point out that four of the top 10 best selling camera kits in Japan right now are EOS M systems? Nikon and Sony scrapped those mounts because the cameras were not selling well.

But heck, why should you allow actual evidence to influence your opinion? Have you considered applying for CEO of Canon? I’m sure they’d love someone as smart as you to run the company into the ground for them.
 

rpg51

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Oct 7, 2021
24
10
I'll just say that Canon has taken a decent bite out of my wallet in the last few months. In the interest of preparing for retirement I decided to get back in the amateur photography game after about 25 or more years away from it. So, I in the last few months I acquired:

R6
15-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
100-500 RF

Also, RF 70-200 2.8 is calling out to me really loudly. I don't want to list the prices because I am in denial about it. :)

Of course, i know others have spent a lot more than I have. But, is there enough volume?

Also, it seems to me that each manufacturer needs to have a decent $500 camera with a decent kit lens to make the payroll and then all this fancy stuff to make a little profit and for marketing. It reminds me a bit of the discussions on the Honda S-2000 forum, (my other favorite and expensive toy). Sadly, if these cameras go the way of the S-2000 we better enjoy these cameras while we can. They may not be around one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,182
I'll just say that Canon has taken a decent bite out of my wallet in the last few months.
Me, too. Switching many lenses to RF for use on the R3, so I recently purchased:

RF 14-35/4L IS
RF 28-70/2L
RF 70-200/2.8 IS
RF 100-500/4.5-7.1L IS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
458
998
You make a lot of valid points here sir. In my opinion, the ultra-high resolutions and burst rates on some of the top of the line cameras creates more problems than they solve, especially when it comes to file management and storage. That being said, I cannot agree with your statement regarding prime lenses. The value of prime lenses is simple and obvious in that they may offer superior optics, and a wider aperture at a greatly reduced price in comparison to a zoom lens. As an example, one of the lenses I shoot with is a ef 200mm f/2.8L USM II that I purchased for around $600. Sure, it's possible that I could have purchased a used ef 70-200 III for an extra thousand, or lost a ton of light with a ef 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS II for a similar price, but the prime provided the additional reach I needed, without compromising my results, while also being budget friendly.

Honestly, I feel that zoom lenses hamper my creativity, and the only reason I even own one is for weather sealing so I can shoot in adverse weather conditions in the snow, rain or at the beach without running into the need to change lenses.
I don't recall saying that there was no value to prime lenses. I only said I have no interest in them. But my point is that those interested in and buying prime lenses - or even f/2.8 zooms - is a minority of camera buyers - and almost certainly a small minority of M users and low-end DSLR users. And for me personally, I have no interest in primes for what I shoot - that doesn't mean others won't have - or even prefer- primes for the benefits they provide.

I think one obvious point about the target market for M buyers and APS-C DSLR buyers is that the kit lenses are always zooms. That target market wants 2 or 3 lenses maximum and still wants to cover the entire focal range they need. So zooms are far more convenient in that regard, which is why, for the majority of camera buyers, I believe convenience is more important than innovation and creativity, which was the point in the post I was commenting on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
135
93
Only time will tell the future of EF-M, the system will be lighter and smaller then an APS-C RF and lens. As long as EF-M is making a good profit I don't see a reason why they would remove it. But if the APS-C RF ends up eating into the EF-M profits too much then I can see Canon phasing it out. I think they will just see how both systems go and take it from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user