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

[neuroanatomist]

There are quite a few Canon camera “fortune tellers” on this forum and I’m very curious how many Canon cameras have they actually used. I have used, bought, and rent Canon cameras since 1980’s when I was in middle school. I still own three film cameras (including the almighty EOS 1v), six Powershots, 20D, 5DIII, 5DsR, the original M, and have rented generations of the 1D models, R5, and R6 for my kids’ sports events and trips to Alaska, Africa and Iceland.

My first Canon camera was a Rebel T1i/500D, bought in 2009 (I shot film on Minolta then Pentax SLRs, then returned from a photography hiatus with Olympus 35mm P&S cameras followed by Olympus digital P&S cameras ending with a 4 MP superzoom).

From Canon, I've owned the T1i/500D, two PowerShots (S95 and S100, I wanted something small that shot RAW), the 7D, 5DII, 1D X, original M, M2, M6, EOS R and EOS R3.

 

[entoman]

There are quite a few Canon camera “fortune tellers” on this forum and I’m very curious how many Canon cameras have they actually used.

In my case I've owned 40D, 50D, 7D, 7DMkii, 6D, 5DMkiii, and 5DS. Currently I own 5DMkiv and R5, both of which I use regularly, shooting at least couple of thousand images every month. I've also owned many Canon lenses, which currently include 24mm T/S-E, RF 24-105mm, RF 100-500mm, EF 100-400mm, RF 800mm F11, EF 100mm macro and EF 180mm macro. In addition to these I've owned Sony a100, a700; Nikon D610, D810; and film SLRs from Canon, Chinon, Contax, Exakta, Fujica, Konica, Minolta, Miranda, Nikon, Pentax, Praktica and Yashica. I also have several Canon-owning friends and colleagues, so I get to hear a lot of comments from them too, so I think I'm probably fairly well placed to make a few guesses about Canon's future activities.

Curiosity satisfied?

 

[AlanF]

In my case I've owned 40D, 50D, 7D, 7DMkii, 6D, 5DMkiii, and 5DS. Currently I own 5DMkiv and R5, both of which I use regularly, shooting at least couple of thousand images every month. I've also owned many Canon lenses, which currently include 24mm T/S-E, RF 24-105mm, RF 100-500mm, EF 100-400mm, RF 800mm F11, EF 100mm macro and EF 180mm macro. In addition to these I've owned Sony a100, a700; Nikon D610, D810; and film SLRs from Canon, Chinon, Contax, Exakta, Fujica, Konica, Minolta, Miranda, Nikon, Pentax, Praktica and Yashica. I also have several Canon-owning friends and colleagues, so I get to hear a lot of comments from them too, so I think I'm probably fairly well placed to make a few guesses about Canon's future activities.

Curiosity satisfied?

“I never think of the future, it comes soon enough.” Albert Einstein

 

[entoman]

“I never think of the future, it comes soon enough.” Albert Einstein

At my age, I know exactly what he meant!

Five years into the future is about as far ahead as I intend thinking!

 

[GoldWing]

Not an insult to the 98% of photographers who are smart enough to keep their cameras out of the water. You want a sports camera with pro level weather sealing, get a pro camera like the R3. Oh, I forgot, you have to have 50 MP or more despite the fact the majority of sports photographers are far happier with the 24 MPs that offer a much faster work flow.

It's only a worthless toy to an incompetent photographer.

The R3 is a toy.

 

[dilbert]

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.

Maybe customer demand for the M6II is light due to the relative expense.

As I said, the M6II is a significant price hike over the M6. It feels like Canon are experimenting with what the market for that form factor camera will tolerate in terms of price.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R3 is a toy.

If the R3 in your hands is equivalent to a Hello Kitty digicam, that’s not the R3’s fault.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Maybe customer demand for the M6II is light due to the relative expense.

As I said, the M6II is a significant price hike over the M6. It feels like Canon are experimenting with what the market for that form factor camera will tolerate in terms of price.

Maybe demand is light because all of the Australian consumers have been reading the rumor sites and they know the M series is about to be discontinued.

 

[entoman]

I don't think it should surprise anyone if the M6 II is in fact discontinued. The supply shortages might have hastened its discontinuation, but if it is discontinued, the most likely explanation is low sales. Perhaps it sold well upon its release, but it has now been out a while and sales may have dwindled to very low numbers. I have no idea of actual numbers, so this is all pure conjecture, but I think the M6 II was always sort of an experiment. It does not fit the usual M profile of being a low priced, small size (using small lenses), easy to use, consumer level camera. Its high MP count, higher FPS, and more sophisticated AF system puts it in a bird/wildlife/action camera category. And, in my opinion, it is not a camera that is built for that market at all. Its tiny, so completely unbalanced with larger EF telephoto lenses (and there are no telephoto M lenses suitable for birds/wildlife). It has no built in EVF, a spec I think most birders, wildlife and sports shooters would prefer. And, perhaps most interestingly, it has essentially the same specs as the 90D, which I believe was released at the same time. Was Canon putting out these two cameras simultaneously to compete against each other to see which form factor users preferred? Perhaps the result was that the camera did not fit the target market at all and sales were considerably lower than anticipated. All speculation, but as a owner of a 6D II for a brief time, I found that for what it seemed best suited for (birds/wildlife/action) it was a very bad fit due to small size, no EVF and a terrible ergonomic fit with large telephoto lenses. If most consumers looking for a tiny, inexpensive ILC camera are looking at the various M offerings, why would they choose the more expensive 6D II ( I assume you mean M6 II ) rather then the M50 or M50 II?

The simultaneous release of M6 II and 90D with near-identical specifications but different form factors, was obviously designed to cater for the wants of 2 different types of user. I got the feeling at the time that Canon saw the possible impending death of the DSLR looming on the horizon, and were experimenting to see how best to present a mirrorless alternative. I think Canon misinterpreted the market in this instance. The M6 II was a bad choice IMO for precisely the reasons you have suggested, and the R7 is a much better solution, albeit still not the pro APS-C sports/wildlife camera that many of us hoped for.

 

[Czardoom]

The simultaneous release of M6 II and 90D with near-identical specifications but different form factors, was obviously designed to cater for the wants of 2 different types of user. I got the feeling at the time that Canon saw the possible impending death of the DSLR looming on the horizon, and were experimenting to see how best to present a mirrorless alternative. I think Canon misinterpreted the market in this instance. The M6 II was a bad choice IMO for precisely the reasons you have suggested, and the R7 is a much better solution, albeit still not the pro APS-C sports/wildlife camera that many of us hoped for.

I think Canon hopes the rumored high MP FF camera is the "pro APS-C sports/wildlife camera" that you mention many are hoping for.

 

[dilbert]

Maybe demand is light because all of the Australian consumers have been reading the rumor sites and they know the M series is about to be discontinued.

Times I have made Camera-related purchasing decisions based on rumors: 0
Times I have made Camera-related purchasing decisions based on price: every time

 

[AlanF]

Times I have made Camera-related purchasing decisions based on rumors: 0
Times I have made Camera-related purchasing decisions based on price: every time

Have you bought any Canon camera in recent years?

 

[SnowMiku]

The simultaneous release of M6 II and 90D with near-identical specifications but different form factors, was obviously designed to cater for the wants of 2 different types of user. I got the feeling at the time that Canon saw the possible impending death of the DSLR looming on the horizon, and were experimenting to see how best to present a mirrorless alternative. I think Canon misinterpreted the market in this instance. The M6 II was a bad choice IMO for precisely the reasons you have suggested, and the R7 is a much better solution, albeit still not the pro APS-C sports/wildlife camera that many of us hoped for.

When I upgraded last year I was thinking of the 90D or M6 II, the reason why I choose the 90D was because of the viewfinder, battery life, ergonomics and weather sealing. If the M6 II had a proper viewfinder, weather sealing (I'm aware that EF-M lenses don't have weather sealing), more ergonomic and the LP-E6 battery I would have chosen that. The R7 is all of those things but more expensive. It would have been nice if the R10 had weather sealing, bigger ergonomics and the LP-E6 battery since it's around the same price as the 90D.

 

[blackcoffee17]

When I upgraded last year I was thinking of the 90D or M6 II, the reason why I choose the 90D was because of the viewfinder, battery life, ergonomics and weather sealing. If the M6 II had a proper viewfinder, weather sealing (I'm aware that EF-M lenses don't have weather sealing), more ergonomic and the LP-E6 battery I would have chosen that. The R7 is all of those things but more expensive. It would have been nice if the R10 had weather sealing, bigger ergonomics and the LP-E6 battery since it's around the same price as the 90D.

I believe the 90D and M6 are for different markets. I would choose the 90D for wildlife photography, sports and photography trips. The M6 is great for city breaks, family events, traveling and where small size is a priority. The M6 with LP-E6 battery, viewfinder and better ergonomic would be much bigger.

 

[entoman]

I believe the 90D and M6 are for different markets. I would choose the 90D for wildlife photography, sports and photography trips. The M6 is great for city breaks, family events, traveling and where small size is a priority. The M6 with LP-E6 battery, viewfinder and better ergonomic would be much bigger.

Yes. I'd make the same decision. The 90D is definitely better for wildlife and sports. Poking a long lens on a M6 II for wildlife etc makes for a very unbalanced and fiddly experience IMO. The M bodies are best used with small compact lightweight lenses, which limits their versatility, although they are excellent as travel cameras.

Fitting a bigger battery, EVF and improved ergonomics would dictate a larger body, and that is basically what Canon have done in giving us the R7. The new ergos of the R7 look pretty good (apart from the lack of a third dial and a couple of other niggles, that users can adjust to), but I would have preferred if they'd stuck with the R6 body for the R7. That however would have presumably pushed the R7 very close to the price of the R6, so I can't really fault Canon's marketing logic.

 

[dilbert]

Have you bought any Canon camera in recent years?

None of your business.

 

[jam05]

Like others here have already said, merely an attempt for CR to make up for its whiff again and erroneous speculation of the R10 being the M series replacement and Canon Rumor's decade long campaign against it. Being thoroughly squashed by Canon themselves. Move on to something else. Its obvious that CR does not understand the small compact camera market. CR believes that everyone needs, desires, or requires a naitive Canon lens. They simply have it all wrong. For a decade now.

 

[jam05]

Yes. I'd make the same decision. The 90D is definitely better for wildlife and sports. Poking a long lens on a M6 II for wildlife etc makes for a very unbalanced and fiddly experience IMO. The M bodies are best used with small compact lightweight lenses, which limits their versatility, although they are excellent as travel cameras.

Fitting a bigger battery, EVF and improved ergonomics would dictate a larger body, and that is basically what Canon have done in giving us the R7. The new ergos of the R7 look pretty good (apart from the lack of a third dial and a couple of other niggles, that users can adjust to), but I would have preferred if they'd stuck with the R6 body for the R7. That however would have presumably pushed the R7 very close to the price of the R6, so I can't really fault Canon's marketing logic.

Yes, and CR has completely left out entire genres and markets. UAS/drones, real estate, travel, vlogging, etc. For some of these genres an EVF is not only not required it isnt wanted at all. In some instances CR needs to crawl from under the rock and discover what's going on. The Zhiyun Crane compact gimbal camera compatibility list may be a perfect starting point. Note: The M series cameras do not require a tiny sub compact lens for every application, simply small enough, for example to clear gimbal vertical pitch angles. Sigma and other manufacturers have filled the void. On a tripod streaming video content, balance is no problem.

 

[John Wilde]

“I never think of the future, it comes soon enough.” Albert Einstein

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." - Niels Bohr

 

[David - Sydney]

M is dead and EF/EF-S is dead.
When I say "dead" it doesn't mean that M and EF/EF-S products won't be produced and sold anymore. Or to say in Canon words: They will be sold "as long as there is demand".

When I say "dead" I mean there won't be any new(!) products anymore.

Having a personal definition of "death" doesn't help general communication.
By multiple sources, Death is the irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. Death is final and absolute.

"End of sale" and "end of support" are good definitions of the final life stage of a product's life. Although some product item pruning has occurred, it is clear that no announcement about even end-of-sale has been made. Clearly a long way from being "dead" and I would contend that M / EF/EF-S are in the maturity/cashcow life stage (and have been for some time).

I suggest that we move to using more definitions used by industry wrt product lifecycle stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_life-cycle_management_(marketing)
Is a good primer but there is a lot of other good and free educational material out there.