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

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
Yes, there are certainly many people who never get beyond owning a kit lens or a double lens kit, but I would think that the market for additional lenses is still huge and very profitable. And even if people only buy a singe kit lens, if that kit lens is a new RF model, that's another lucrative sale that Canon wouldn't have made if users didn't move from DSLRs to RF. The most popular RF lens is probably the 24-105mm F4L - that's a thousand dollar lens, and heaven knows how many of them Canon has sold.
The RF 24-105/4L, and the EF 24-105/4L (I and II) before it, are kits lenses for FF bodies so of course they're popular. That actually supports my point – when you buy your first FF body, you need a FF kit lens to go with it. I suspect Canon's data show that the people who are 'upgraders' and buy >1-2 lenses also upgrade their body (likely more than once). That's actually an argument for having separate, incompatible mounts that 'force' those wanting to upgrade to buy new lenses to go with their new body and vice-versa.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,742
15,010
Diffraction limiting is not a hard stop, and there are other aspects which will not be limited. As long as you see aliasing/moire, the lens outresolves the sensor. Also, sensor resolution itself is cheap. If there was no other issue, you want all the pixels there is, and then you pay for your lens class to take care about resolution limits.

Anyways, Canon cripple hammer will hit, and it will hit hard.

I'm before camera purchase right now. Need at least 240FPS at 720p or better. I guess no Canon camera can do that.
I posted a thread where I calculated the theoretical values of the combined MTF values of sensors with lenses at different f-numbers. There is of course not a hard stop, and I wasn't implying it or stating it. Lenses don't outresolve sensors and vice versa: the overall MTF of the system is a function of the MTFs of all the components. As you go through the DLA of the sensor, you are in the realm of diminishing returns for increased resolution on increasing the pixel density.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,165
UK
I do think there may be another factor at play. There may be a certain segment of the market that looks at an R and says, "that's too big. I don't want to carry that around." I say that because for that customer base, the competition is smart phones, not other cameras.

How small can Canon make an R series body?, and perhaps even more important, how small can they make an RF lens and still have it fit on a full frame body. The recent 16mm indicates pretty small, but can they or will they, make a whole series of tiny lenses in RF mount?

Size may be the most important thing that the M series has going for it and I'm not sure they can get down to that size easily in the R series.
The bodies probably won't be much smaller, but that's not really the point. The body and kit lens combo will be smaller and lighter, because lenses for APS-C will have shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view. And if the user has 2 or 3 lenses, the difference in overall weight and portability is quite significant. It's an important factor for many users, hence the popularity of M43 and M series cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
The body and kit lens combo will be smaller and lighter, because lenses for APS-C will have shorter focal lengths for the same angle of view. And if the user has 2 or 3 lenses, the difference in overall weight and portability is quite significant. It's an important factor for many users, hence the popularity of M43 and M series cameras.
Does that mean you believe there that if there is an APS-C EOS R then there will be RF-s lenses (or whatever functional equivalent), to achieve that smaller/lighter form factor?
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,165
UK
Does that mean you believe there that if there is an APS-C EOS R then there will be RF-s lenses (or whatever functional equivalent), to achieve that smaller/lighter form factor?
Yes, I do think there will be RF lenses specifically designed for APS-C, just as there were APS-C lenses specifically designed for DSLRs. Not many of course, initially just a kit lens, but I would expect at least 2 or 3 others to follow. It's not as if Canon don't have the manufacturing capacity.

On Canon's crop DSLRs, lenses designed especially for them were very popular e.g. the 18-135mm. That lens was pretty awful, but there were some truly excellent APS-C lenses, such as the acclaimed EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. It would be disappointing (and to me, surprising) if there were no RF lenses produced specifically for APS-C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
551
689
USA
Valid points, but a big unknown is the future of the M system, which is already very close to the Rebel price point.

Your hypothetical Costco buyer may be interested in both price and small size and the M is likely to maintain those advantages over the R system. I suspect that only a tiny minority of those buyers will ever go beyond a bundled two lens kit and if at some point they decide to "upgrade" they won't have enough invested in the M system to hesitate chucking it all for an RP and 24-105 STM or whatever lower cost body and lens combination Canon may offer.

On this forum, we often presume that there are significant cost savings and incentives to consolidate lines, but I wonder if the savings is really much of a factor. Canon continues to churn out two-lens Rebel kits for about $550. It is hard to see a similar price point for the R series in the near future.
Yeah for sure, we're all just speculating. I think the M series suffers, in this hypothetical consumer's mind, from looking too much like a point and shoot. Its not 'real camera' enough. Certainly speculation again, but I know personally a few interested hobbyists who have said they don't want a fancy point and shoot, and don't really fully understand that the M series is more that just a fancy point and shoot. Size matters, apparently, in this case. :) For the record, I love my M50 and am a big proponent of the brand. If Canon commits to it replacing the Rebel line, that means good things for the future of the line. It just seems like they intend to keep it fully separate though, if they keep it around at all.

As to cost savings for consolidating, its less about volumes and production efficacy than it is about organizational drain. Go the RF and you can have one product line manager, one platform engineer, one product pipeline manager, etc. Stick with EF and you'll duplicate at least some of that, and have to maintain tech experts and separate marketing, sales and support structure for both. On the outside of the organization looking in, it doesn't seem like it amounts to much. But its the kind of consolidation managers really pat themselves on the back for.

Brian

Yes, I do think there will be RF lenses specifically designed for APS-C, just as there were APS-C lenses specifically designed for DSLRs. Not many of course, initially just a kit lens, but I would expect at least 2 or 3 others to follow. It's not as if Canon don't have the manufacturing capacity.

On Canon's crop DSLRs, lenses designed especially for them were very popular e.g. the 18-135mm. That lens was pretty awful, but there were some truly excellent APS-C lenses, such as the acclaimed EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. It would be disappointing (and to me, surprising) if there were no RF lenses produced specifically for APS-C.

I think what we'll see is lenses that have popped up in the patents where the image circle is just a little too dark at the corners for a full frame, but work with in camera corrections (think the 24-240). These lenses are well suited to APSc sensors, and because of their design look like they'll be nice and compact. There is really no good reason for them to do an RF-s mount. The smaller mirror on APSc DSLRs allowed the rear of the lens to get a little closer to the sensor and had some advantages, but there will be diminishing returns with the already short flange distance of the RF body.

Brian
 

mdcmdcmdc

R7 (preordered!), 7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
213
318
Can someone please explain why Canon would replace the EOS M line with a low-cost APS-C EOS R?

After that, explain why Toyota decided to replace the Corolla (the world's best-selling car) with a low-cost Camry. Oh wait, Toyota isn't foolish enough to do that.
I thought the Corolla was a low-cost Camry. :)

Not a perfect analogy because the market for cars hasn't shrunk by 90% over the past ten years, unlike cameras. Canon is diverse enough that they'll survive just fine, but as far as cameras go, they're the big fish in smaller and smaller pond.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,165
UK
I promise you, you will be delighted with the R6+1.4xTC+100-400 and that it's basically equivalent (if I am allowed to used the word) at f/11 to the bare 100-400mm at f/8 on 15 Mpx APS-C. A 20-24 Mpx R APS-C would be very nice. The R6 has a very good sensor and delivers very crisp images. An R5 with the 100-500mm would have cost you double.
Alan, how does the RF 100-400mm compare with the EF 100-400mm and the RF 100-500mm in terms of AF speed?

Does the smallish F8 aperture at 400mm slow down the acquisition time?

Putting a 1.4x extender on it knocks the max aperture down to F11 at 400mm, so presumably this restricts the AF area to the large square zone, as is the case with the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

mdcmdcmdc

R7 (preordered!), 7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
213
318
For all of us armchair market analysts who know for certain that Canon "should" release a low-end or high-end APS-C body first, Sony recently announced that due to chip shortages, they were going to stop accepting orders for two of their three current APS-C bodies, the a6100 and a6400, which are the low end and mid range ones. The high end a6600 can still be ordered, at least for now.

I'm not sure what factors contributed to that choice, but given the high commonality of parts between the three, it's interesting that they chose to prioritize the more expensive model over the (I'm guessing) higher volume models.

Source:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,742
15,010
Alan, how does the RF 100-400mm compare with the EF 100-400mm and the RF 100-500mm in terms of AF speed?

Does the smallish F8 aperture at 400mm slow down the acquisition time?

Putting a 1.4x extender on it knocks the max aperture down to F11 at 400mm, so presumably this restricts the AF area to the large square zone, as is the case with the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses?
Gordon Laing has just reviewed the RF 100-400mm and concurs that it has very speedy AF. I can’t tell the difference from the other two lenses. It’s been fine for the limited BIF so far. The image rectangle is not restricted on using the TC. Gordon also concurs that stopping down doesn’t increase IQ. And the corners aren’t too bad for distant scenes. It performs above its pay grade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
Not many of course, initially just a kit lens,
The problem there is illustrative of the problem with the whole RF APS-C idea. There’s not a lot of room between the EF-M 15-45 that lists for $300 and the RF 24-105/4-7.1 that lists for $400.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,165
UK
Gordon Laing has just reviewed the RF 100-400mm and concurs that it has very speedy AF. I can’t tell the difference from the other two lenses. It’s been fine for the limited BIF so far. The image rectangle is not restricted on using the TC. Gordon also concurs that stopping down doesn’t increase IQ. And the corners aren’t too bad for distant scenes. It performs above its pay grade.
Worth considering for BIF then, where the light weight will reduce muscle fatigue. The "budget" RF lenses are surprisingly good - my 800mm F11 can't quite match my EF 100-400mm and 1.4x iii combo (wide open at F8 with extender) for sharpness, but is a lot better than I had expected for the price. A friend of mine is considering the RF100-400mm so I'll direct him to Gordon's review.

Strange that the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses can only use the large square AF zone, if the full frame area can be used at F11 with the RF 100-400mm & 1.4x combo.
 

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
989
1,165
UK
The problem there is illustrative of the problem with the whole RF APS-C idea. There’s not a lot of room between the EF-M 15-45 that lists for $300 and the RF 24-105/4-7.1 that lists for $400.
Nevertheless it seems that Canon is going ahead with RF APS-C, if the rumour is reliable, which in turn would indicate that Canon believe there is a profitable market for it.

I'd consider an APS-C if it had around 28MP, which compares with the 17MP you get if you crop an R5 down to APS-C dimensions.

For me, it's the reach of the lenses that attracts - e.g. a 70-300mm on APS-C would be roughly equivalent to a 100-400mm on FF, but significantly cheaper, lighter and more compact.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
Would that be the same 'huge market' that was clamoring for a 7DIII...that Canon decided not to make?

I'm always skeptical when people claim to know more about the market than a global, multibillion dollar company with mountains of market research data.
You have made this assertion many times and it seems logical but I don't think that anyone would disagree that Canon was late to the FF mirrorless party and even then the R was clearly using the 5Div spare parts inventory.
The R5/R6 were clearly built from the ground up (R6 with 1DXiii sensor) and are now very competitive but were released 7 years after the Sony a7/a7r and still 2-3 years after Sony's 3rd generation a7 bodies.

Sony's current market share (in my opinion) was built mostly from Canon users as they were able to adapt their EF lenses even if the adapters weren't perfect. Canon still remains the market share leader but I wonder what share it could have had with some competitive ff mirrorless models years earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
While I am not sure about how likely a 7D-type of RF aps-c camera would be, I also don't think that there will be "RF-S" lenses.
There are already RF lenses which require some stretching in post-processing on a full-frame sensor. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon will release further lenses with focal lengths which are kind of typical for aps-c sensors, but which also work on full frame with significant post-processing.
Most of the lenses released so far which fit into that category are rather light and lower-cost, and not that different in terms of size and weight from EF-S lenses. A dedicated set of RF-S lenses would likely have no significant advantage in terms of weight or cost, and wouldn't work on full frame.
RF-s lenses will be an interesting market... low cost kit lenses are needed and needs to be much less than the USD1300 RP+ 24-105mm f/4-7.1

The biggest issue is wide angle. Any rumoured 10mm+ lens is likely to be a RF equivalent for the EF11-24mm L series but an equivalent EF-s 10-22mm would be missing. Of course, adapted EF-s lenses could be the solution or at least a welded adapter to the current EF-s 10-22mm similar to the RF 400/600mm variants
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,742
15,010
Worth considering for BIF then, where the light weight will reduce muscle fatigue. The "budget" RF lenses are surprisingly good - my 800mm F11 can't quite match my EF 100-400mm and 1.4x iii combo (wide open at F8 with extender) for sharpness, but is a lot better than I had expected for the price. A friend of mine is considering the RF100-400mm so I'll direct him to Gordon's review.

Strange that the 600mm and 800mm F11 lenses can only use the large square AF zone, if the full frame area can be used at F11 with the RF 100-400mm & 1.4x combo.
The 100-500+1.4x at f/10 uses the full area and +2xTC a larger area at f/14 than the 800 at f/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user