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

[Czardoom]

What market have they ceded?

EOS M200 EF-M 15-45mm IS STM Kit

Fast and Accurate Dual Pixel CMOS AF with Eye Detection AF. High-Image Quality with 24.1 Megapixel CMOS (APS-C) Sensor. 4K Video and 4K Time-lapse Movie along with Vertical video*. 3.0-inch Touch Panel LCD Screen with Tilt Option for 180° for Selfies. Built-in Bluetooth®** and Wi-Fi®...

www.usa.canon.com

Slots #2-7 on the domestic best-selling ILC list belong to Canon. Note the other clear message in that list – the DSLR is far from dead, unless people believe that dead products are best-sellers.

View attachment 201467

My guess is that Canon will begin to make mirrorless rebels in the lowest price brackets that continue to be best sellers, if not in the next generation, then in the one after that. While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless. Not only don't care, but won't know the difference, because quite frankly, there is little difference. Potential buyers will pick up the camera, look through the viewfinder - or on the back screen - and will take the shot. They will see that you can change lenses and buy additional ones if you want. That the kit lens that comes with the camera is an RF rather than an EF lens will probably not be noticed. Canon, since they are smart, will call them "Rebels," will keep the form factor essentially the same, the price essentially the same, sell them on Amazon and other non-specialized retailers and most buyers will never know there is anything different from the "Rebel" their parents, or siblings, or friends bought recently or few years back. This way, whatever percentage of buyers that end up upgrading or expanding their camera and lens collection (probably a small percentage, but there will be some, as most of us here probably took that path), will be buying RF lenses, which will allow Canon to ultimately cut the cost of trying to maintain both EF and RF lens systems.
That is my guess.

 

[slclick]

I think it would be natural to have 3 bodies. Rebel, XXD and R# hierarchy. Perhaps a common body style unique to the crop RF line.

 

[Dragon]

Seems like kind of a hard call. The Nikon Z APS-c models are as expensive as a Z5 and only three lenses after two years. Nothing to compete with the M50 there. I can see Canon wanting to assuage the whining from the 7DII crowd, but that would have to be done carefully so as to not signal departure from the very popular M line. In my view, it would make more sense to release an R5s first and see if the volume level goes down from the birders, but if they do an APS-c body, it seems like at least the first thing out the gate needs to be 7D II replacement with lots of pixels and very well featured. 40 or 45 MP would put it in the 100MP FF reach range and that should end the "more pixels on the bird" chatter as there are very few lenses (even RF lenses) that can take full advantage of that kind of pixel density. The problem would be that such a camera would likely cost more than an R6. A Rebel-like entry level APS-c would only make sense if they purposely kill the M line and that would mean developing a fair number of inexpensive lenses, not to mention millions of unhappy M customers. Personally, I still think the 100ish MP FF body makes more sense.

 

[SteveC]

My guess is that Canon will begin to make mirrorless rebels in the lowest price brackets that continue to be best sellers, if not in the next generation, then in the one after that. While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless. Not only don't care, but won't know the difference, because quite frankly, there is little difference. Potential buyers will pick up the camera, look through the viewfinder - or on the back screen - and will take the shot. They will see that you can change lenses and buy additional ones if you want. That the kit lens that comes with the camera is an RF rather than an EF lens will probably not be noticed. Canon, since they are smart, will call them "Rebels," will keep the form factor essentially the same, the price essentially the same, sell them on Amazon and other non-specialized retailers and most buyers will never know there is anything different from the "Rebel" their parents, or siblings, or friends bought recently or few years back. This way, whatever percentage of buyers that end up upgrading or expanding their camera and lens collection, will be buying RF lenses, which will allow Canon to ultimately cut the cost of trying to maintain both EF and RF lens systems.
That is my guess.

If they do decide to keep the Rebel name, I imagine they'll start over on the numbers and put a new prefix or suffix on it. The low-end Rebels currently are T3, T4, etc.; I could see those becoming Rebel R1, Rebel R2, etc. for RF mount models. -i and -s suffixes can be added as they do currently.

Of course folks in Europe will likely just see 3 or 4 digit model numbers without the "Rebel" marque, as today.

 

[dwarven]

"Reach" is very important. For years when going to shoot wildlife I always "reach" for the 5Ds R rather than the 7D II. Now I will "reach" for my R5.

The obvious problem with that is the R5 is out of reach for many people.

 

[Czardoom]

Just put the RF 1.4x on the R6. I've been doing it for bird photography, and have been posting some of mine and my wife's bird photos on the Bird Portrait thread taken with it and the RF 100-400mm + RF 1.4x on the R6, and I think the results are as good as from my RF 100-500mm on the R5. OK, you might say, you are at f/11 with the 1.4x on an f/8. But, don't worry. Each pixel of the R6 is 1.5x1.5 larger than that of the R5 so that you can double the iso and have the same signal/noise for the pixel, and your image has been enlarged by 1.4x. Basically, the 20 Mpx R6 with a 1.4xTC has a very similar field of view and similar reach and S/N as the R5 in crop mode: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918531

Excellent suggestion...In fact, I just bought the RF 1.4, but haven't had a chance to test it out. Of course, that added another $500 US. So the total cost of the R6, 1.4x, and the RF 100-400 was about $3,650. My hope is that a crop camera might come in at a little less than the R6, maybe $2,000, in which case I am getting slightly more reach (640 vs. 560), more light (f/8 vs. f/11), presumably slightly faster AF without the telconverter, and a lower cost - maybe as much as $1,000 less, almost certainly $500 less as I won't need the 1.4x. But for now, yes, I hope the 1.4x works out well.

 

[AlanF]

Excellent suggestion...In fact, I just bought the RF 1.4, but haven't had a chance to test it out. Of course, that added another $500 US. So the total cost of the R6, 1.4x, and the RF 100-400 was about $3,650. My hope is that a crop camera might come in at a little less than the R6, maybe $2,000, in which case I am getting slightly more reach (640 vs. 560), more light (f/8 vs. f/11), presumably slightly faster AF without the telconverter, and a lower cost - maybe as much as $1,000 less, almost certainly $500 less as I won't need the 1.4x. But for now, yes, I hope the 1.4x works out well.

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.

 

[unfocused]

...While people on forums make this big deal about the differences between mirrorless and DSLRs, I believe the reality for most camera buyers in the entry level or low cost category, is that they don't care one iota if it is a DSLR or mirrorless...

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.

 

[wyotex43n]

Just put the RF 1.4x on the R6. I've been doing it for bird photography, and have been posting some of mine and my wife's bird photos on the Bird Portrait thread taken with it and the RF 100-400mm + RF 1.4x on the R6, and I think the results are as good as from my RF 100-500mm on the R5. OK, you might say, you are at f/11 with the 1.4x on an f/8. But, don't worry. Each pixel of the R6 is 1.5x1.5 larger than that of the R5 so that you can double the iso and have the same signal/noise for the pixel, and your image has been enlarged by 1.4x. Basically, the 20 Mpx R6 with a 1.4xTC has a very similar field of view and similar reach and S/N as the R5 in crop mode: see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/show-your-bird-portraits.1280/page-1237#post-918531

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. So here is a hypothetical
Your R6/100-400/1.4 extender is currently $3647. You get 20MP at f11 at 560mm.
Your R5/100-500 is currently $6698. using your crop mode idea you get 17mp at f7.1 at 500mm.
What if there was an R7 at 32mp for the same price as an R6?
R7/100-500 for $5298. 32mp at f7.1 at 500mm. Whats the noise and iso performance like? I don't know. Which one yields the best results? I don't know.
What Canon will do I think is figure out which one appeals to the most people and makes them them the most money.

 

[AlanF]

Seems like kind of a hard call. The Nikon Z APS-c models are as expensive as a Z5 and only three lenses after two years. Nothing to compete with the M50 there. I can see Canon wanting to assuage the whining from the 7DII crowd, but that would have to be done carefully so as to not signal departure from the very popular M line. In my view, it would make more sense to release an R5s first and see if the volume level goes down from the birders, but if they do an APS-c body, it seems like at least the first thing out the gate needs to be 7D II replacement with lots of pixels and very well featured. 40 or 45 MP would put it in the 100MP FF reach range and that should end the "more pixels on the bird" chatter as there are very few lenses (even RF lenses) that can take full advantage of that kind of pixel density. The problem would be that such a camera would likely cost more than an R6. A Rebel-like entry level APS-c would only make sense if they purposely kill the M line and that would mean developing a fair number of inexpensive lenses, not to mention millions of unhappy M customers. Personally, I still think the 100ish MP FF body makes more sense.

I think the situation has changed one helluva lot because of the introduction of excellent narrow aperture lenses. As you say, a 40-45 Mpx sensor requires the quality lenses to go with it. Basically, they need to be f/4 or wider to take advantage of those small pixels. The 45 Mpx of the R5 become rather wasted for apertures narrower than f/7.1.

 

[AlanF]

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat. So here is a hypothetical
Your R6/100-400/1.4 extender is currently $3647. You get 20MP at f11 at 560mm.
Your R5/100-500 is currently $6698. using your crop mode idea you get 17mp at f7.1 at 500mm.
What if there was an R7 at 32mp for the same price as an R6?
R7/100-500 for $5298. 32mp at f7.1 at 500mm. Whats the noise and iso performance like? I don't know. Which one yields the best results? I don't know.
What Canon will do I think is figure out which one appeals to the most people and makes them them the most money.

The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.

 

[bbasiaga]

Consider that 1) over 40% of the ILCs produced this year were DSLRs, 2) Canon and Nikon are the only major manufacturers making DSLRs, and 3) Canon has a much larger market share than Nikon. That means Canon dominates the DSLR market segment without strong competition – generally a desirable place for a company to be. What’s the incentive for Canon to try and shift that segment to one where there’s lots of competition?

One could potentially argue that what Canon really leads is the market segment looking for cameras in that price range. Here in the US, you walk in to Costco and see pallets of the rebel kits. Canon has the name recognition and the price point, and therefore gets the sales. Whether a DLSR is in that box or an RF mirrorless, I think, matters much less to the consumer. They may not even know the difference. They just want a 'real' camera. Not a point and shoot and not a phone. And they want it at that price point.

So if that is really what is happening, then Canon would be incentivized to consolidate production and engineering to one mount system.

I'm not saying its impossible Canon remains committed to the DSLR system. Predictions, as they say, are hard to make correctly - especially when they are about the future. But it would seem that if the pro/prosumer series has left the DSLR behind already, it will do the same to the entry level market at some point as well. If we see a new DSLR rebel it may mean Canon can't quite get the performance they want at that price point in mirrorless quite yet (cost of EVF? battery life?). But at some point they will.



-Brian

 

[crashpc]

The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx APS-C sensor is f/5.2. An f/7.1 is basically reducing it to the resolution of about a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor. I had a 90D, a great little camera with a 32 Mpx sensor, but it needed my 400mm f/4 to take advantage of it. On the 5DSR, which is about equivalent to a 20 Mpx APS-C sensor, the 400mm f/4 was hardly better than the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. But, on the 90D, it was much better. So, you would have to pay a lot for a lens and carry a lot more weight to make 32 Mpx APS-C more worthwhile in practice than a 20 Mpx sensor.

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.

 

[Czardoom]

...

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.

I don't think they will want to. The M50 will be the low cost crop camera for those that want small. The potential low-cost crop R camera will be for those that want a "DSLR Rebel" size camera. Considering both of these body types/sizes sell well now, why not continue to sell both styles?

 

[entoman]

That sounds plausible and is frequently given as a rationale, but with the popularity of double lens kits and the overall 1.4:1 lens:camera ratio, the reality is that most people never buy another lens beyond what came with the camera (and the popularity of the nifty 50 suggests that if they do buy one, it’s a really cheap one).

I think Canon is well aware that the “upgrade path“ is a forum user phenomenon that’s not reflected in real world purchases.

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.

In order to remain profitable, companies need to regularly launch new products and new product ranges or they quickly lose out to other more progressive brands. While Canon may *appear* to have initially resisted switching from DSLRs to MILCs, in the long term the move will be hugely beneficial to them.

 

[dlee13]

I doubt possible but if it is a RF Mount EF-M style camera, would be cool if you could still somehow use EF-M lenses with it.

 

[vjlex]

This is the CR3 I've been waiting for. I have been on the fence about how to upgrade my very dated, but still very good M3. There was no M5 Mark II, and the two M50s didn't quite check all my boxes. Add to that I finally decided to move to RF lenses, I really want a second body that can actually mount them. I look forward to more word on this soon.

 

[John Wilde]

An APS-C R has been rumored since 2018. Still waiting.

​

 

[bergstrom]

Hoping we get an RP successor with longer life battery wayyyyyyyyy before that.

 

[unfocused]

One could potentially argue that what Canon really leads is the market segment looking for cameras in that price range...Whether a DLSR is in that box or an RF mirrorless, I think, matters much less to the consumer. They may not even know the difference. They just want a 'real' camera...

So if that is really what is happening, then Canon would be incentivized to consolidate production and engineering to one mount system.

I'm not saying its impossible Canon remains committed to the DSLR system...But it would seem that if the pro/prosumer series has left the DSLR behind already, it will do the same to the entry level market at some point as well. If we see a new DSLR rebel it may mean Canon can't quite get the performance they want at that price point in mirrorless quite yet (cost of EVF? battery life?). But at some point they will.

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.