Is a Canon EOS R100 coming next year? A budget EOS R APS-C camera [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

You are obviously too stupid to read properly!

Discussion with you would be a lot easier if you would use arguments instead of personal insults!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not really. The M50 and M200 target the Rebel Demographic, so they don't really need to make more EF-M lens models. Neither PowerShot buyers nor M50/200 buyers have lenses what work on R - but that's OK.

Correct.

If and when R-series bodies drop down into the price range of the M50 and M200, they still may start to cannibalize M-series sales, and if R-series prices drop under $500, they may start to cannibalize entry-level DSLR sales (the T7/2000D/Kiss X90 is $480 with kit lens).

Even at that point, as Steve Jobs said, “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.” Canon has released lots of new camera models that cannibalized sales of previous models. They've also led the ILC market for two decades. Seems like they know what they're doing.

 

[lote82]

Sadly, some people on this forum would not know a fact if it bit them on the behind. it’s hard to hear reason when your own opinion is thundering too loudly in your head.

Should I go back further down the timeline? ...
I think this would be a good moment to start again without insults (I mean both of us) ... but maybe it's only me!

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I wrote about the M-Lineup being done in 2020 and a lot of people with M-Cameras were mad and went off on me. I stated that it wouldn't make sense to support 3 lens lineups at the same time. They told me that the EF was going to be the one to go, and I said that is correct along with the M. you wouldn't believe how angry people were for me saying that lol. all good. They have to streamline the lineup and make sure that there is one mount moving forward. it's going to be important that all camera brands do this because of how sensitive the market can be at any given moment. I also think that the M-Series will make for a great novelty camera that people will end up paying above market value for in the future.

Why does everybody believe that having multiple mounts is a problem? Canon should be streamlining expensive components, like sensors and DIGIC processors, which they are doing. The mount? That’s just a piece of stamped metal. There’s very little cost efficiency to be gained from that. People who buy R bodies are generally not interested in using M lenses on them, and vice versa. These are different product lines that serve different customer segments, with different needs and different performance expectations.

 

[entoman]

Some will disagree, but I think the "problem" with the M6 II is that it lacks a built-in EVF. The accessory EVF is expensive and small enough to be easily lost or forgotten. I don't know what the sales figures are, but I'd guess that it only sells in pretty low numbers and is far less profitable than e.g. the very popular M50.

Until the R7 announcement, the only alternative, for those who wanted the most up to date Canon APS and the 33MP sensor, was the rather "old fashioned" 90D. That has an integral OVF, but is far from being a compact camera. The R7 effectively, is a M6 II with an integral EVF, and I'm sure it will sell in vast quantities.

So from Canon's point of view, it may make economic sense to drop the M6 II, but to retain the cheaper and more popular M models. Whether or not they have actually made that decision remains to be seen. It's quite possible that sales in Australia were particularly poor, and that it still sells "enough" in other countries to stay in the catalogue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why does everybody believe that having multiple mounts is a problem? Canon should be streamlining expensive components, like sensors and DIGIC processors, which they are doing. The mount? That’s just a piece of stamped metal. There’s very little cost efficiency to be gained from that. People who buy R bodies are generally not interested in using M lenses on them, and vice versa. These are different product lines that serve different customer segments, with different needs and different performance expectations.

The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.

The other factor is that Canon is not stupid. Where possible, they reuse lens designs. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are EF lenses with an RF adapter fixed to the back end. The RF-S 18-45 is a new design (likely needed because 15mm doesn't need to be retrofocal with the EF-M 18mm flange distance, but would need to be with the 20mm RF flange distance), but the RF-S 18-150 is a repackaged version of the EF-M 18-150.

RF-S 18-150mm


EF-M 18-150mm


That suggests they could do the same with the EF-M primes and the M55-200. That minimizes development costs, which increases profits (and incidentally eliminates one of the biggest problems with product cannibalization).

I think this isn't a problem at all for Canon, it's only a problem in the minds of some forum participants. But then, it's clear that some forum participants have about as much business acumen as a bowling ball.

 

[lote82]

I can see the reasoning behind your case, but there's no reason why Canon can't keep RF *and* M alive, if both are profitable, which they are. We tend to think only about our own markets (mostly North America & Europe), but the M series are huge sellers in Asia. Even EF will remain for at least another 5 years, as Rebels are still among Canon's biggest sellers.

Look at other brands - Fujifilm is doing very well with 2 mounts, Panasonic is still doing OK with 2 mounts despite having a much smaller segment of the market. I think Canon still has the largest ILC market share, they are a massive company and perfectly able to produce and sell 2 or even 3 systems concurrently. Ultimately the survival of the M series will depend on how the Asian market reacts. They tend to like small, stylish, and relatively cheap cameras there, and the M series fits that requirement far better than any other Canon product line.

BTW, I'm not a defensive M owner, just a neutral observer.

As I already said, the problem is not having 2 or more mounts but the cannibalization of similar products.

Fujifilm has 2 mounts because they differ well in product specs and/or price level. One for APS-C and one for medium format with a full frame gap inbetween.
Panasonic is similar: One mount for MFT and one for full frame with even 2 formats (APS-C and full frame) inbetween.

Sony, Nikon and Canon only offer APS-C and full frame. These two formats are close together. Therefore it does make sense to give them one mount.
Exchange of format/lenses and transition of target groups is a big benefit facing an unknown future. Manufacturers can adapt faster and cheaper to new challenges and customer demands ... in a shrinking market it's wise to have less mounts with less product lines.

What about the M50 and M200? They are similar in specs and price level ...

Short answer:
They are both dying out dinosaurs!

Long answer:
Once there was a M5 and M6. Now there is only the M6 (threatened with extinction probably because of the newer R10)
Once there was a XXD and a 7D line. Now there is only the R7.
Once there was a M50 and M200. In the future there will be only the R100.

Apropos Panasonic:
They are part of the L-mount alliance and share the same mount with different(!) manufacturers.
Why are they doing this?

 

[cayenne]

I didn’t think it was legal to fly drones in national parks, but I might be wrong. Best to check before you go.

It's always legal....if they don't catch you.

 

[entoman]

As I already said, the problem is not having 2 or more mounts but the cannibalization of similar products.

Fujifilm has 2 mounts because they differ well in product specs and/or price level. One for APS-C and one for medium format with a full frame gap inbetween.
Panasonic is similar: One mount for MFT and one for full frame with even 2 formats (APS-C and full frame) inbetween.

Sony, Nikon and Canon only offer APS-C and full frame. These two formats are close together. Therefore it does make sense to give them one mount.
Exchange of format/lenses and transition of target groups is a big benefit facing an unknown future. Manufacturers can adapt faster and cheaper to new challenges and customer demands ... in a shrinking market it's wise to have less mounts with less product lines.

What about the M50 and M200? They are similar in specs and price level ...

Short answer:
They are both dying out dinosaurs!

Long answer:
Once there was a M5 and M6. Now there is only the M6 (threatened with extinction probably because of the newer R10)
Once there was a XXD and a 7D line. Now there is only the R7.
Once there was a M50 and M200. In the future there will be only the R100.

Apropos Panasonic:
They are part of the L-mount alliance and share the same mount with different(!) manufacturers.
Why are they doing this?

I'm not disagreeing with your logic , just stating that Canon are a big enough and rich enough company to be able to afford to keep to both lines running if they want to do so. And for the next 3-4 years, I think that's what they'll choose to do, despite "cannibalisation", because the M50 in particular is still extremely popular in Asia, which is a major market for Canon.

As I suggested previously, the future of M doesn't depend on how you or I react, it depends on how the Asian market reacts. The M50 might well be dropped in Europe or North America if the R10 becomes more popular, despite the price difference. But, until such time as the M series get *rejected* by the Asian market, Canon will keep supplying M cameras to that market.

Canon aren't foolish enough to drop a top-selling camera. You may consider it to be a "dinosaur" but try telling that to the consumers in Japan.

For 10 years people have called DSLRs "dinosaurs", yet I think they still account for about 40% of Canon's total sales. Change is of course inevitable, but change doesn't happen rapidly, and IMO it will take at least 3 years to phase out the M series.

 

[Czardoom]

I can see the reasoning behind your case, but there's no reason why Canon can't keep RF *and* M alive, if both are profitable, which they are. We tend to think only about our own markets (mostly North America & Europe), but the M series are huge sellers in Asia. Even EF will remain for at least another 5 years, as Rebels are still among Canon's biggest sellers.

Look at other brands - Fujifilm is doing very well with 2 mounts, Panasonic is still doing OK with 2 mounts despite having a much smaller segment of the market. I think Canon still has the largest ILC market share, they are a massive company and perfectly able to produce and sell 2 or even 3 systems concurrently. Ultimately the survival of the M series will depend on how the Asian market reacts. They tend to like small, stylish, and relatively cheap cameras there, and the M series fits that requirement far better than any other Canon product line.

BTW, I'm not a defensive M owner, just a neutral observer.

I haven't kept any kind of official records, but lots of folks seem to think the M cameras are only best sellers in Asia, and that does not seem to be the case. Every month or so for the past year or more I check the Amazon best sellers and the M50 and/or M50 II is always near the top, usually in the top 5 although today I checked and among mirrorless the M50 II w/ kit lens and other extras is #9, M50 II content creator kit is #15 and the M200 kit is #19.

What I think most forum member miss is that the target market for the M cameras is people buying a camera (perhaps their first) at Amazon, Best Buy, Cosco, Target, etc. Thy don't care if it is mirrorless or DSLR, they don't care if they can use RF lenses (they won't even know they exist, most likely), they are looking for inexpensive and small. It is a camera they will use for the next 5-10 years, and they won't need any more than 3 lenses at most (wide angle zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom) or they will choose the 18-150 as a one lens kit. They don't need eye-tracking, they don't need high fps, they don't need any R&D to be put into the system. They are just looking for something that is more versatile and an upgrade to the smartphone. Something easy to use on vacation, on family events, or for simple YouTube video creation. They are not gear-heads. At least, that is my opinion on the target market. Others, I'm sure, will disagree.

What Canon hopes ( I would think) is that at least some percentage of people who start out with an M camera, will develop a greater interest in photography and will look to get a more advanced camera, and more advanced lenses at some point. If they are happy with their M camera, Canon hopes they will check out Canon's new RF system before looking at other brands. I can't speak for others, but that was my path many years ago. Bought the original Digital Rebel and kit lens. Had no idea that it was a "crop" sensor nor did I care. (Film had many different sizes, no one in their right mind thought a smaller sized film was somehow "cropped".) Used it for 8 years until it began to have issues. Decided to "upgrade" to a 6D and bought a 24-105 L lens. Was happy with Canon, so stuck with Canon.

 

[bf]

If you want to optimize a body for compactness, then, the difference between EF-m and R mount becomes important. Canon left the M line globally but later returned with M3. Even if they slow down now, they'll be back. EF-m is fighting for market share that Fuji, M4/3, and somewhat Sony, and Nikon are active in it: portable cameras that offer decent optics and much larger sensors compared to what may be placed on cellphones. They also offer a touch of nostalgia and a hint of art although Canon and Sony never showed any tastefulness in the design department.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.

The other factor is that Canon is not stupid. Where possible, they reuse lens designs. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are EF lenses with an RF adapter fixed to the back end. The RF-S 18-45 is a new design (likely needed because 15mm doesn't need to be retrofocal with the EF-M 18mm flange distance, but would need to be with the 20mm RF flange distance), but the RF-S 18-150 is a repackaged version of the EF-M 18-150.

RF-S 18-150mm
View attachment 204148

EF-M 18-150mm
View attachment 204149

That suggests they could do the same with the EF-M primes and the M55-200. That minimizes development costs, which increases profits (and incidentally eliminates one of the biggest problems with product cannibalization).

I think this isn't a problem at all for Canon, it's only a problem in the minds of some forum participants. But then, it's clear that some forum participants have about as much business acumen as a bowling ball.

On the subject of consolidation, I would speculate that the EF/EF-S and EF-M mounts already use the exact same electrical signaling and protocol. Only the form factor is different. That’s why you can buy a cheap no-name adapter on Amazon and it just works.

I would similarly speculate that the RF mount starts up in “EF mode”, with the same electrical signaling and protocol, which, again, is why the adaptors work so well. When an RF lens is attached, the mount switches to “RF mode” and enables higher data rate, more drive current, and support for the control ring and whatever else RF lenses can do that EF can’t.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon aren't foolish enough to drop a top-selling camera. You may consider it to be a "dinosaur" but try telling that to the consumers in Japan.

For 10 years people have called DSLRs "dinosaurs", yet I think they still account for about 40% of Canon's total sales. Change is of course inevitable, but change doesn't happen rapidly, and IMO it will take at least 3 years to phase out the M series.

Indeed. Some data from 2021:

Canon sold 1.2M DSLRs. That means ~55% of all DSLRs and ~23% of all ILCs shipped in 2021 were Canon DSLRs.

Canon sold 0.9M M-series bodies. That means ~29% of all MILCs and ~17% of all ILCs shipped in 2021 were Canon EOS Ms.

It’s truly laughable when people suggest market segments of those sizes are ‘dead’ and that Canon is foolish enough to abandon them.

 

[entoman]

What I think most forum member miss is that the target market for the M cameras is people buying a camera (perhaps their first) at Amazon, Best Buy, Cosco, Target, etc. Thy don't care if it is mirrorless or DSLR, they don't care if they can use RF lenses (they won't even know they exist, most likely), they are looking for inexpensive and small. It is a camera they will use for the next 5-10 years, and they won't need any more than 3 lenses at most (wide angle zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom) or they will choose the 18-150 as a one lens kit. They don't need eye-tracking, they don't need high fps, they don't need any R&D to be put into the system. They are just looking for something that is more versatile and an upgrade to the smartphone. Something easy to use on vacation, on family events, or for simple YouTube video creation. They are not gear-heads. At least, that is my opinion on the target market. Others, I'm sure, will disagree.

What Canon hopes ( I would think) is that at least some percentage of people who start out with an M camera, will develop a greater interest in photography and will look to get a more advanced camera, and more advanced lenses at some point. If they are happy with their M camera, Canon hopes they will check out Canon's new RF system before looking at other brands.

There are also people who buy an M as a travel camera, to complement their EF or RF gear, but I think that you've described the *typical* M buyer very well.

Like every company, Canon makes the odd mistake, but they got to become the biggest brand because they know exactly how to read the market, and how to design a range of cameras that fill a whole range of niches. Sometimes people misunderstand market segmentation and perceive particular models from the same brand as being in competition with each other, when in actual fact they are filling slightly different market niches, and are complementary.

As an aside, slightly tongue-in-cheek, it probably hasn't escaped Canon's notice, that if M novices later progress to an RF model, Canon will have succeeded in selling TWO sets of lenses to them, which in terms of sales, is a very good reason for having 2 or even 3 different mounts.

 

[David - Sydney]

Just because something is unavailable doesn't mean it is discontinued. Given all of the supply chain and transport issues, this is probably THE worst time to make such a conclusion.

Being unavailable hasn't stopped retailers advertising different Canon bodies and lenses and taking orders even if the supply chain delays have meant extensive delays in fulfillment.

The only other reason I can think of is if the Australian market variant of the M6ii has unique parts that cannot be sourced anymore. Common examples of variants include radio transmission local differences, power cords and labeling/packaging/documentation but that seems unlikely.

It is also unlikely that a particular geographic market would discontinue a product available in other geographies unless it doesn't want to keep local stock in advance of a global discontinuation path. As I pointed out, Canon Japan also seems to have made it unavailable for purchase and you would expect Japan to be the last country to support a local product.

 

[addola]

When Canon introduced the EOS M line (2012?), they did not have "future expansion into full-frame" in mind. It was around the same time the Sony E-mount came out, however, the Sony A7 was announced a year later as a FF mirrorless camera. The two mounts are similar, they have the same 18mm flange distance, and the Canon mount is slightly larger.

Canon could have just continued to use the EOS M mount for full-frame since Sony showed it can work, but Canon's decision to make a whole new mount is interesting, and is probably influenced by lens design. Things could have just introduced a larger mount in 2012 instead of the EOS M, but perhaps they were thinking about smaller form factor.

 

[David - Sydney]

Long answer:
Once there was a M5 and M6. Now there is only the M6 (threatened with extinction probably because of the newer R10)
Once there was a XXD and a 7D line. Now there is only the R7.
Once there was a M50 and M200. In the future there will be only the R100.

It is hard to follow your grammatical tenses here. "Once there was a" would indicate a fairy tale in the long distant past. Clearly this is not the case.
The xD series is still being sold (6Dii/5Div/5Ds R).
There are a number of xxD and xxxD bodies currently for sale
The M50/M200 is currently for sale

The R10 is arguably better than the 7Dii in terms of AF performance/AF points/AF aperture minimum (RF800/11 + 2xTC), mp count, fps (mech, eshutter and pre-shooting), flippy screen - and video.
If better weather sealing, IBIS, bigger battery, more mp and dual cards are important to you then the R10 is the other option

Sure, there may be a migration path but that is not clear based on the current line up.

 

[lote82]

The issue is not about the mount, per se, but rather lenses designed for the mount. EF lenses are different designs than RF lenses, which are different than EF-M lenses. Having said that, I agree that it's not a problem. First off, Canon is a big company. How many different styles and shapes of ink and toner cartridges do they manufacture for their printers? I don't know, but it's not a small number. They clearly have the resources to maintain multiple lines of a wide and diverse array of products.

The other factor is that Canon is not stupid. Where possible, they reuse lens designs. The RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 are EF lenses with an RF adapter fixed to the back end. The RF-S 18-45 is a new design (likely needed because 15mm doesn't need to be retrofocal with the EF-M 18mm flange distance, but would need to be with the 20mm RF flange distance), but the RF-S 18-150 is a repackaged version of the EF-M 18-150.

RF-S 18-150mm
View attachment 204148

EF-M 18-150mm
View attachment 204149

That suggests they could do the same with the EF-M primes and the M55-200. That minimizes development costs, which increases profits (and incidentally eliminates one of the biggest problems with product cannibalization).

I think this isn't a problem at all for Canon, it's only a problem in the minds of some forum participants. But then, it's clear that some forum participants have about as much business acumen as a bowling ball.

So, if a bowling ball like me gets you right it is as cheap and easy to adapt same lenses on different mounts like ink cartridges on different printers, right?

You have proven the world once more that you are an incredible genius!

 

[lote82]

It is hard to follow your grammatical tenses here. "Once there was a" would indicate both a fairy tale in the long distant past. Clearly this is not the case.
The xD series is still being sold (6Dii/5Div/5Ds R).
There are a number of xxD and xxxD bodies currently for sale
The M50/M200 is currently for sale

The R10 is arguably better than the 7D in terms of AF performance/AF points/AF aperture minimum (RF800/11 + 2xTC), mp count, fps (mech, eshutter and pre-shooting), flippy screen - and video.
If better weather sealing, IBIS, bigger battery, more mp and dual cards are important to you then the R10 is the other option

Sure, there may be a migration path but that is not clear based on the current line up.

Yes, not every camera is discontinued already. But I think it is quite obvious that not every line of camera once existed (or even still existing) will have a successor in the future. For ex. 90D and 7D was melted to R7. M5 and M6 was melted to M6 II. M50 and M200 (probably) will melt to an assuming R100. That doesn't necessarily mean all these cameras aren't produced anymore. It's just not sure if they will have an (direct) successor or not ...

What I was trying to indicate:
Time changes everything, even camera lines! In an increasingly shrinking market the camera lines will also shrink! When you have a smaller line-up of cameras (with uncertain future) it is not wise to separate them even further by supporting different mounts.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The M6 Mark II might not be officially "discontinued" by Canon Global, but production could be limited or suspended due to supply chain issues. That might explain why @David - Sydney said it was listed on the Australian website but nobody has stock, or why two national subsidiaries chose to discontinue it.

This isn't just Canon. Sony announced last November that they were halting production on a few cameras due to the global semiconductor shortage, and about a month later they did discontinue a couple of those and halted a few others. See here and here.

Under normal circumstances, Canon might sell a lot more M's than R's, but when sales of everything is limited by how many can be built, it makes sense to shift the available parts to the higher margin R's.