Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

[Tom W]

Very interesting. I wonder if the 2 sensors are already in the lineup, or if they're redesigned. I had heard in a previous rumor that the 32.5 that is likely to be in the R7 is a backside illuminated sensor. No word if that's true, or if it's the same as the 90D sensor.

It looks like the 18-150 is possibly designed off the M series 18-150, but the 18-45 seems new. Wouldn't be bad to have a 15-45 instead of 18-45.

All interesting, and I'm looking forward to all of this new stuff.

 

[mpwolken]

I hope the R10 will get IBIS. That is the single most useful advantage of mirrorless cameras. And with a smaller sensor IBIS could even have a larger effect when you use a full frame lense.

It is unlikely that the R7 and R10 will have a new mount. That only made sense with DSLRs, because there a smaller mirror made it possible that the lens can reach further into the body. That advantage vanishes, if there is no mirror at all.

I'm guessing the R10 will be mostly an RP with an APS-C sensor to keep it cheap.

 

[John Wilde]

I'm guessing the R10 will be mostly an RP with an APS-C sensor to keep it cheap.

My guess is that it will be significantly smaller than an RP, and not have a viewfinder.

 

[lote82]

Someone said there won't be any RF-S lenses... Ooops...

You mean the same someone whining now RF-S lenses aren't small enough (despite being not existent)?

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Pixel size doesn’t really matter. Sensor size does. No assumptions are needed, just knowledge of physics.

Not sure if that statement refers to diffraction or noise, but either way, I thought I did understand the physics and it was about pixel size.

Diffraction: Smaller pixel resolution is limited sooner by growing Airy disk as aperture is reduced.

Noise: Smaller pixel = smaller "bucket" to hold charge, so more affected by leakage and less distinction between "levels" in the ADC. Also larger surface area relative to its volume allows more leakage.

Based on my understanding, both of these are pixel-level phenomena. Doesn't matter if the sensor is APS-C, FF, or the size of a football field. A larger sensor just has more of them.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Some M lenses have great image quality but zooms like the 15-45 or 18-150 are nothing special and built like some cheap toys almost.

I respectfully disagree. Canon's kit zooms have improved dramatically over the past 8-10 years. Sure, they're not "L" quality optically or mechanically (or price), but their image quality is more than sufficient for the consumer market and then some.

I've used an M5 and EF-M 18-150 as a travel kit for about four years, and I've found the combination to be more than sharp enough for my needs without pixel-peeping in the corners. I've shot backlit subjects with the afternoon sun in the frame with that combination. The sensor had the DR to pull good detail out of the subject, and the lens controlled the flare to only a single small spot.

Maybe you and I have different standards, but I've been impressed.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I respectfully disagree. Canon's kit zooms have improved dramatically over the past 8-10 years. Sure, they're not "L" quality optically or mechanically (or price), but their image quality is more than sufficient for the consumer market and then some.

I've used an M5 and EF-M 18-150 as a travel kit for about four years, and I've found the combination to be more than sharp enough for my needs without pixel-peeping in the corners. I've shot backlit subjects with the afternoon sun in the frame with that combination. The sensor had the DR to pull good detail out of the subject, and the lens controlled the flare to only a single small spot.

Maybe you and I have different standards, but I've been impressed.

I had the 15-45 and it was an OK lens on the M10. On M6 Mark 2 is soft. But at least that lens is so cheap and small you don't really care. But the 18-150 was overpriced for what is it.

 

[blackcoffee17]

This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement, it's more a 1300d replacement, so the numbering system is changing, the 90d must therefore be an R8, then the 850d's replacement will most likely be the R9. This R10 is entry level. I'm wondering if the R7 is even worth the wait, especially if they use an old sensor from the 90d. I'm more interested in performance than cost as we are ripped off by canon anyways, the R5 is more in pounds than dollars, even though it's still 1.22 to the pound. How can they justify £4,300 against $3,800?

15 FPS does not sound entry level to me.

 

[bf]

The EF-M lenses are not low quality. The lenses are not full frame nor designed for it, but have similar performance on an APS-C sensor as full frame Canon (non-L) glass has on a full frame Canon camera. At least one lens does play on a level with L-glass, the 32mm F1.4. The 11-22 IS is not "exceeded" by any non-L lens made for APS-C by Canon to date; in fact, it crushes the others in the same range on size and weight. I have the R6, 5D Mark II and M6 Mark II. The R6 enables IBIS and full frame video for me in one nice package, but it is not compact. I may add an R7 as well when it is available, but mostly for wildlife; I'm not going to be pocketing it like I do with the M6 Mark II and a 22mm F2.0.

I agree; M will never be understood by DSLR users or anyone who has not used it. Range finder crew, hip shooters, and street photographers belong to a different tribe! I read someone wanted to replace it with a cellphone or suggested M6mii's 32MP sensor becoming the new 18MP?! All these comments tell me they have overlooked the small body. 11-22, 22F2, 32F1.4,` and even somewhat 55-200 all are great glass offering unique capabilities. M line never gave any superzoom or extreme focus performance perhaps because the physics don't fit. Fuji X has offered a 100-400 but that's heavier than RF 100-400. I see canon is going after a smilar approach of smaller and cost effective in R line. What surprizes me: Canon never appreciated the considerable revenue they got through the M line. They took the money but never respected the customers as they should have had. I want to keep my M system; I may go to R line or Z line but not for APSC; I may get an optimized full frame system instead.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I had the 15-45 and it was an OK lens on the M10. On M6 Mark 2 is soft. But at least that lens is so cheap and small you don't really care. But the 18-150 was overpriced for what is it.

Indeed. I don't have much experience with the 15-45, but you're right, the MSRPs on Canon's kit lenses are pretty steep. I got my 18-150 in the kit, and it was right around when the M50 was released so they were having some good deals on the M5. But if you can't get it bundled in a kit, buy used.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So a question, is the EVF on the R3 better than the other R bodies?

I only have an EOS R for comparison, but the EVF on the R3 is much better. It's not quite as good optically as the one on my 1D X, but it's nearly there and for me, the convenience of being able to toggle on and off information displays outweighs the slightly lower optical quality compared to a good OVF.

Just like EVFs, not all OVFs are equal. The 1-series OVFs are stellar. The R3 EVF is optically better than the EVF of the non 1-series bodies I've used (500D, 7D, 5DII).

 

[lote82]

If I misunderstood your words I apologize, but you may understand that your statements might be misinterpreted.

In any case I am just saddened that my favorite system is on its deathbed and I don't really see how an RF-S system can replace it. Maybe it really is time to leave ILC systems for family/travel photography behind and fully embrace the next generation of smartphones. The convinience might be worth the image quality tradeoff.

I waited 8(!) years for a successor of the 7D II.
Have you been waiting that long?

If you like the M-system, stick with it.
If your camera still functions, use it.
If not, buy a new (or used) one.
There will be many years till M is outdated (even if it’s not supported anymore).

Meanwhile just wait what Canon will come up in the future ...
I don’t think there is a reason to be desperate.

 

[sanj]

R10! Interesting..

I’m guessing then in the future we’ll have the R20, R30, R40.. As such with the 70D, 80D and 90D. The R7 is obviously the 7D line replacement we’ve all been waiting for!

Time to save££££££!

You mean spend?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not sure if that statement refers to diffraction or noise, but either way, I thought I did understand the physics and it was about pixel size.

Diffraction: Smaller pixel resolution is limited sooner by growing Airy disk as aperture is reduced.

Noise: Smaller pixel = smaller "bucket" to hold charge, so more affected by leakage and less distinction between "levels" in the ADC. Also larger surface area relative to its volume allows more leakage.

Based on my understanding, both of these are pixel-level phenomena. Doesn't matter if the sensor is APS-C, FF, or the size of a football field. A larger sensor just has more of them.

It referred to noise. For diffraction, pixel size is what matters.

For image noise, not so much. Yes, a smaller pixel has a slightly higher noise level, but image noise is proportional to total light gathered, and a larger sensor gathers more light. If you compare the image noise from the 20 MP 1D X III to the 45 MP R5, which have similar underlying sensor tech, the image noise is not meaningfully different. Note that when I say image noise, I'm talking about the whole image. Pictures, not pixels. The R5 collects the same amount of light as the 1D X III, just in smaller buckets. An APS-C sensor will collect less light, meaning more noise when viewed at the same output.

The key is comparing pictures. Obviously, if you compare an R5 image from the full sensor with an R5 image in crop mode and view them both at 1:1, the noise is identical. But if you view them at the same output size, the crop image must be enlarged more, and noise will be more apparent when you do that.

Side note, a larger sensor doesn't necessarily have more pixels. My R3's FF sensor has 24 MP of them, the M6II's APS-C sensor has 32 MP of them. There are smartphones that use Samsung's 108 MP sensor, which is 1/1.33" with a pixel pitch of 0.8 µm.

 

[adrian_bacon]

I see the R7 as being the replacement to the 7D line, and the R10 as being the replacement to the 80D/90D line. If this replaces the M line, OK, but I just don't see it going that way, but instead, Canon replacing the whole 7D/80D/90D DSLR line with the RF mount, and at some point in the not too distant future, the T8i/xxx DSLR line being replaced with an R100 that maybe could serve also as an M line replacement, but they desperately need smaller glass that is geared towards APS-C in order to truly replace the M series. They could also just be simplifying down so that there's just an R1/R3/R5/R6/R7/R10 line and no triple digit R, which means the T series DSLR is going bye bye and M series at some point being replaced with a triple digit R line once the lenses are there.

EF-M is already mirrorless and doesn't really have anything wrong with it other than being a bit long in the tooth, whereas, Canon still has a whole DSLR line to transition to mirrorless so that they can free up those resources for all mirrorless work, so I'd expect their priority to be replacing the line that has mirrors with RF versions first, then at some point decide what to do about EF-M.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This R10 is clearly not a 90d replacement

Well, The R6 is a 6D II replacement with a significant drop in MP

 

[adrian_bacon]

Well, The R6 is a 6D II replacement with a significant drop in MP

I don't know if I'd call going from 26 to 20 MP a significant drop, but yes, point taken, it's not an increase, that's for sure. I'd be totally fine with an R10 that had the 80D sensor, or even an updated BSI 80D sensor. It was quite good. It looks like the R7 is getting a BSI version of the 90D sensor, so one can hope that the R10 would get a BSI update, but if it doesn't, the 80D sensor has nothing wrong with it other than being a little long in the tooth. It's a nice solid resolution, and good DR.

 

[Jasonmc89]

You mean spend?

I need to save first!

 

[jam05]

The Canon M6 is about 390 grams roughly 14 ounces, no EVF to worry about slamming into a gimbal during calibration, And about 4.5 x 3 x 2 inches. That's quite a tall order for the R10 to fill. We'll wait and see if this is more bla bla bla as it has been for nearly a decade now. Seriously doubt that the R10 will be minus an EVF as the M6. That seems to me as the obvious priority leak to be obtained.

 

[dog8food]

Lack of infinite money might be one reason.

Like the crop R is gonna be so much cheaper.