Is Canon actually going to launch RF-S lenses alongside the Canon EOS R7?

[Blue Zurich]

Is there a CR1/2/3 rating for this rumour? I just noticed that it isn't mentioned. based on the wording, you would expect CR3

Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]

Specifications for the Canon EOS R7 are few and far between, and unfortunately, unconfirmed at this time. However, these are the specifications that I have rece

www.canonrumors.com

This is a corresponding article, actually this one seemed merge quite nicely into the other. CR1

 

[Jethro]

I really don’t understand why Canon has decided to go with a crop sensor mirrorless camera and make RFS lenses. It seems like a bad move and will use resources for other products. The reason I say this is full frame camera prices are lowering all of the time. The RP can be bought for under $1000 and eventually we will probably see $500 full frame cameras.

It hasn't decided - we're still in CR1 rumour territory for the APS-C body, and maybe not even that for specialist RF-S lenses. You're right about the effect of future lower $ FFM bodies on this issue, and there were rumours last year of 1 or 2 upcoming low $ FF bodies, which haven't been sighted, but if they were would reduce the 'space' in Canon's lineup for a mirrorless Rebel replacement. But part of the hopes for a APS-C body is that it will be a successor to the 7Dii, and therefore unlikely to be low $.

 

[masterpix]

RFs lenses makes sense only if Canon is going to make the R-Rebel camera, the price of RF glass is not something beginners can afford at the moment and if Canon wants to move Rebel users to R cameras, it may well be a great idea, especially with cancellation of the M line which is only reasonable at this time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...cancellation of the M line which is only reasonable at this time.

Why? If you ran a business, would it seem reasonable to you to cancel a product line that was consistently the best-selling one in its segment in your home country?

 

[masterpix]

Why? If you ran a business, would it seem reasonable to you to cancel a product line that was consistently the best-selling one in its segment in your home country?

Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.

So you'd advise Toyota to stop making the Camry to eliminate a production line? Lol. I hope you don't actually run a business, unless it's a sole proprietorship where your decisions only affect you.

 

[John Wilde]

Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?

(CIPA) For 2021 as a whole in yen, it was 91,281,997 for DSLRs and 324,552,875 for mirrorless That's -5.7% for DSLRs, and +31.4% for mirrorless, compared to 2020.

 

[neuroanatomist]

(CIPA) For 2021 as a whole in yen, it was 91,281,997 for DSLRs and 324,552,875 for mirrorless That's -5.7% for DSLRs, and +31.4% for mirrorless, compared to 2020.

I am referring to units shipped. As I stated in my reply to @unfocused, MILCs are clearly ahead in revenues.

 

[David - Sydney]

Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]

Specifications for the Canon EOS R7 are few and far between, and unfortunately, unconfirmed at this time. However, these are the specifications that I have rece

www.canonrumors.com

This is a corresponding article, actually this one seemed merge quite nicely into the other. CR1

Yes but https://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-eos-r7-has-been-pushed-to-q4-of-2022/
also has no rating but "We have confirmed that the camera will be called the “EOS R7” and it will come this year"

 

[David - Sydney]

Manufacturing wise, it is much simpler and cheaper to have one production line than two.

Canon makes a variety of products and segments within product markets. Should they stop making printers because it means 2 supply chains as they make camera bodies (and lenses and medical equipment, and scanners and semiconductor manufacturing equipment and security etc)?

If it is profitable as a standalone product that can make use of existing IP and little to no ongoing indirect costs (eg R&D) then it makes sense to keep it. No use killing a cash cow.

 

[lote82]

I agree, it’s the big question. Ironic that some who ‘liked’ your post seem to disagree and have decided it’s already been answered.

Worth noting that DSLRs comprised ~44% of the ILC market in 1Q22, and in 2021, and in 2020. Is that withering slowly, or not withering at all?

I liked the comment because that is indeed the big question!

Yes, for me personally the question is already answered and therefore I already stated my OPINION! (That doesn't mean I will be right, because nobody can predict the future).

You also already answered the question (more than once) by giving facts and data and think you have a PROOF for your answer!

 

[lote82]

That's a big "maybe"...

Canon are not licensing RF mount to third parties, so independents have to reverse-engineer.

AFAIK, at the moment the only non-Canon lenses in RF mount are the 14mm and 85mm Samyang/Rokinon models, and the (excellent) totally manual Laowa lenses. However,
Sigma are reckoned to be working on RF mount designs, and Tamron will probably follow soon afterwards, so a few independent RF lenses should start to appear in 2023.
But most if not all of these will likely be full frame lenses, as that will maximise sales.

Adapted EF-S lenses should work fine on an imaginary "R7" body, but they'll be optically inferior (but still absolutely fine) to RF equivalents, and will not be able to take advantage of combined IBIS/OIS stabilisation. Also, DSLR lenses tend to autofocus slightly slower than RF versions, which may be relevant IF the imaginary "R7" was to be a serious wildlife/sports tool.

Yes, I'm aware of this!
I'm not a professional photographer or pretend to be the best hobbyist in the world who only needs L-lenses.

The image quality I can squeeze out of APS-C with decent glass (and sometimes even with poor) is in most cases more than enough for me!
Maybe someday I will shoot more low light and therefore an upgrade path to FF would be very welcome!
To be honest, I don't know how for ex. my Sigma 150-600mm C will perform with adapter on RF mount. But as far as I know it will perform good enough.

Do you have experience with Laowa or own one?
I'm interested in the 100mm macro ... would you recommend it (not mainly but also) for Portrait?

 

[entoman]

Do you have experience with Laowa or own one?
I'm interested in the 100mm macro ... would you recommend it (not mainly but also) for Portrait?

I have the Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro, which goes from 2.5-5x magnification. At high magnification manual focus works best for me. The almost conical design of the lens makes it easy to position small flash units close to the subject. Optical quality is excellent. Definitely recommended if you are into serious high magnification. I use it to photograph tiny caterpillars, insect eggs etc, using tripod and focus rail.

For longer focal length "macro" i.e. shooting larger insects, reptiles etc I prefer Canon 100mm and 180mm as both have autofocus, which is much faster than focusing manually when you have timid subjects that only settle momentarily. The Canon 100mm has good optical image stabilisation, but the 180mm doesn't. IBIS isn't particularly effective with macro.

Many people use the 100mm macro for portraits and close-ups of wedding rings etc. If I was shooting those genres I'd choose the RF 85mm F2 macro instead, as it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and more suited to the task IMO.

Hope that helps.

 

[roby17269]

No, they don’t. But reasonable deductions can be made from sales data that are publicly available.

Who is personally offended by the idea of an R7?

Should I start referring to a ‘handful of forum participants that are desperately salivating after their wet dream of a mirrorless version of the 7DIII’?

I will say, what does offend me are people who ignore facts and data, and make asinine statements that are easily refuted by those facts and data. A prime example being people who claim DSLRs or the EOS M system are ‘dead’ despite ample, readily available data that show their claim to be false and their ongoing false statements to be completely idiotic.

I am with you in some aspects. I am not offended at all by the idea of a crop RF camera, whatever shape it will come in (if it will)... but I will say that, as someone invested in FF and not interested in crop, egoistically, I'd prefer Canon to focus on delivering more FF RF cameras and lenses... meaning I fear that crop bodies and lenses would reduce the R&D resources for FF, in a time when R&D resources are probably stretched.

Regardless of my feelings, I do not believe that a crop RF camera will be introduced. I will not be majorly unhappy if I will be proven wrong.

But I do disagree on the outlook for the EF and M systems. I do not believe that Canon will "kill" them outright, but I do believe that Canon will leave them in limbo with 0 investments and let them die of "attrition". They will of course keep selling existing offerings since they require no further investment, as long as there will be enough buyers to justify support costs and as manufacturing these cameras and lenses will not jeopardize the manufacturing of higher-end models.
What ample and readily available data is there, apart from good sales in Japan, to prove that things will improve in the future for EF and M?
Reasonable deductions based on multiple instances of manufacturers saying that they are focusing on the higher end of their offerings to serve pros and enthusiasts make me think that Canon and Sony and Nikon will pay at best lip service for crop cameras and lenses. Also, lack of new EF and M cameras and lenses will sooner or later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[JasonL]

I am with you in some aspects. I am not offended at all by the idea of a crop RF camera, whatever shape it will come in (if it will)... but I will say that, as someone invested in FF and not interested in crop, egoistically, I'd prefer Canon to focus on delivering more FF RF cameras and lenses... meaning I fear that crop bodies and lenses would reduce the R&D resources for FF, in a time when R&D resources are probably stretched.

Regardless of my feelings, I do not believe that a crop RF camera will be introduced. I will not be majorly unhappy if I will be proven wrong.

But I do disagree on the outlook for the EF and M systems. I do not believe that Canon will "kill" them outright, but I do believe that Canon will leave them in limbo with 0 investments and let them die of "attrition". They will of course keep selling existing offerings since they require no further investment, as long as there will be enough buyers to justify support costs and as manufacturing these cameras and lenses will not jeopardize the manufacturing of higher-end models.
What ample and readily available data is there, apart from good sales in Japan, to prove that things will improve in the future for EF and M?
Reasonable deductions based on multiple instances of manufacturers saying that they are focusing on the higher end of their offerings to serve pros and enthusiasts make me think that Canon and Sony and Nikon will pay at best lip service for crop cameras and lenses. Also, lack of new EF and M cameras and lenses will sooner or later become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Canon knows that an R7 built with the same weather sealing and robustness of the 7D2 will be a huge winner. Not with folks attaching a kit 18-55 lens. With amateur wildlife and sports photographers that cannot afford $20K of flagship level bodies and long L glass.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon knows that an R7 built with the same weather sealing and robustness of the 7D2 will be a huge winner.

Why did it take Canon 5 years to release a 7DII, longer than any other series update cycle? Why did Canon never release a 7DIII?

Canon knows things we don't, and their treatment of the 7-series does not suggest they believe it to be a 'huge winner'.

 

[[email protected]]

I have the Laowa 25mm Ultra Macro, which goes from 2.5-5x magnification. At high magnification manual focus works best for me. The almost conical design of the lens makes it easy to position small flash units close to the subject. Optical quality is excellent. Definitely recommended if you are into serious high magnification. I use it to photograph tiny caterpillars, insect eggs etc, using tripod and focus rail.

For longer focal length "macro" i.e. shooting larger insects, reptiles etc I prefer Canon 100mm and 180mm as both have autofocus, which is much faster than focusing manually when you have timid subjects that only settle momentarily. The Canon 100mm has good optical image stabilisation, but the 180mm doesn't. IBIS isn't particularly effective with macro.

Many people use the 100mm macro for portraits and close-ups of wedding rings etc. If I was shooting those genres I'd choose the RF 85mm F2 macro instead, as it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and more suited to the task IMO.

Hope that helps.

I have that Laowa too. I use it primarily for water insects, ect., for a nature magazine I contribute to. My beef with the lens is that the zoom feature creeps something awful when facing downward (important for watery subjects). I have have grip tape available to tape it in place.

Will also recommend the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro. This is not the "zero d" 15mm version of theirs. The wide angle macro is awesome for showing critters in their context.

 

[scyrene]

For people who want distance that 1.6 crop will save a lot of money on lenses.
Canon did make super-telephoto more accessible with the RF 100-400, RF 100-500, RF 600 f/11, and RF 800 f/11 but those could still benefit from a 1.6 crop.
People who just want to save money are probably better off just sticking to older cameras anyway.

I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.

 

[unfocused]

I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.

Always tradeoffs. A friend of mine used to tell his video clients "cheap, fast, good. You can have two of the three, but not all three. Now pick which two you want."

More seriously though, I do wonder if we are moving into an era where the next stage of innovation in optics is likely to come through software solutions. It seems that lenses still reside (mostly) in the analog era, while camera bodies live in the digital age. I wonder if, in the not too distant future digital solutions will become standard for many lens designs.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I do wonder though... while I think the impact of diffraction is generally overstated, I don't see much benefit to mounting f/11 lenses on sensors of the sort of pixel size/density the 7D folk seem to want. I know AlanF has done some tests on this with the 90D, but obviously you can't mount the RF lenses on that. Would they be getting much more reach? It's diminishing returns, I feel a bit of wishful thinking might be involved if that's what people are hoping for.

Maybe the 800mm will be "over the edge". I don't know. Will definitely try it myself ! But if I want 35mm-equivalent reach of 800mm, at approx. the same weight as the RF800/11 lens, I can get the RF100-500 as a much more versatile lens on an APS-C body:
1) Equivalent to 160-800mm fullframe zoom
2) Probably faster AF than the RF800
3) Much much better minimum focusing distance
4) Full sensor AF-coverage (vs. only center-part with RF800 on fullframe body)
5) f7.1 APS-C should also be comparable with f11 on fullframe I guess?

PS. Personally I don't only want R7 for "reach". I want it because it (I assume) is high-end and fast tool I can afford, and because the all-purpose kit I want will be much more lightweight with the lenses I would get (or EF-S lenses I already have) for an APC-C camera, including wideangle lenses. But reach for wildlife and sport/action is definitely also a good thing.