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

[Dragon]

Given Canon has discontinued some EF lenses, it is unlikely that they will release a new EF lens in the future. RF needs more lenses and Canon wants users to migrate as soon as possible. Note that RF lenses offer something additional to their EF counterparts to justify their higher price in most cases eg weight/size/aperture/focus speed/magnification/focal length etc. If we combine RF and EF, there is an amazing range of lenses available.

Is there a need for a new M lens? They seem to have a complete system and you can always use a EF-s/EF lens especially for telephoto.
A new M body would be welcomed.

A light and compact 100-400 would be welcomed by many M users. The light EF alternatives kind of end at 300mm and the Tamron 18-400 doesn't like M cameras much (i.e. Tamron won't even try to make the AF work correctly for an M body), plus it is on the heavy side. Other than that, yes a replacement for the M5 would be nice, but I suspect the technology is not quite there yet to fit some of the new processor features into the M power envelope. The fact that the M6 II didn't include the nice downscaling 4k crop mode video feature of the 90D was likely due to power limitations. Clearly, the AF and video features of the R5 and R6 (i.e. digic x) are pretty power hungry, so maybe we are just in a bit too much of a hurry. Only time will tell. BTW, since it uses the same battery, a more competent replacement for the RP suffers from the same power limitations as the M cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A light and compact 100-400 would be welcomed by many M users.

A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).

 

[JasonL]

Maybe but unlikely. Canon would like you to buy USD20k of big whites of course.

I think that a lot of wildlife togs have moved to R5/R6 simply due to the lack of 7Dii replacement and the fps/focus abilities of the R5/6.
RF100-500 (+TCs), RF600/800/f11 have provided a telephoto solution for people who can't afford big whites.... or kept their EF100-400mm + TCs.

Good point. I would just add that the R7 we're hoping for would fall in between the R6 and R5 so essentially its the R5 versus the R7. If the R7 is equivalent in build quality to the 7D2 I would guess the R7 comes in around $2800 which would hopefully put the build quality equal to the R5, but a moderate step below the price of the R5. Go ahead and cripple the video in the R7. The target audience wouldn't really care lol.

 

[Otara]

Good point. I would just add that the R7 we're hoping for would fall in between the R6 and R5 so essentially its the R5 versus the R7. If the R7 is equivalent in build quality to the 7D2 I would guess the R7 comes in around $2800 which would hopefully put the build quality equal to the R5, but a moderate step below the price of the R5. Go ahead and cripple the video in the R7. The target audience wouldn't really care lol.

I would. This is the problem with that camera, make it too narrow in features and the available customer group shrinks, too large and it starts competing with others.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The target audience wouldn't really care lol.

Lol. First you claim to know what Canon knows, now you claim to know what others want. News flash – you don't.

 

[Dragon]

A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).

That would be sweet. I would instantly preorder it. The AF at 7.1 might be a little dodgy on the M and M2, but should be OK on all the rest.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.

There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828

I've copied the relevant information below:

"Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"

 

[lote82]

A zoom with 400/7.1 at the long end should be optically possible within the M lens constraint (assuming they stick with the uniform diameter that all 8 EF-M lenses have).

Technically possible, but would it also be economically wise?

The market is shrinking. Developing a long tele (which is not long enough) for a second mount, while good/better teles already exist in another mount, is quite odd!

As already mentioned, there is already a Tamron 18-400mm. Why isn't it available for EF-M? Maybe because Tamron doesn't see a market for this in M-system...

 

[lote82]

I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.

There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828

I've copied the relevant information below:

"Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"

Regarding to this chart the "wildlife" market is indeed very small. It's so small, it doesn't even exist!

You obviously think wildlife is only about animals. If you ask me it's rather a mixture of animals, landscape and traveling.
It's not only about animals. It's about "animals" in their natural habitat ("landscape") which you can only find when "traveling".

An assumed R7 would be perfect for this (and even more)!

 

[Kit.]

I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.)

To those who can afford these trips, Canon will gladly sell an R5.

 

[lote82]

I generally agree. although I think the wildlife market is larger than the naysayers believe. As proof of the market as viable and lucrative I would simply suggest people spend a little bit of time on the internet searching for photo-oriented trips and experiences. Price out a nature photo tour to the Galapagos, Africa, Central America or Alaska. Then check to see about availability and how far in advance they are booked up (A year or more is not uncommon.) And, those are only the most common destinations, there are hundreds, if not thousands, more limited and specialized experiences available. Of course not everyone paying for these experiences will buy an R7, but Canon has no doubt done the research and knows the market.

Good point!

A wildlife camera like the assumed R7 would also be very useful for traveling. Photographing is expensive, but traveling even more. Some of us have to decide if it's better to spend the money in rather expensive FF cameras and lenses or in expensive trips. Furthermore it’s always pain in the ass if gear gets lost/broken/stolen… Expensive gear even more.

Nearly forgotten … I’m not willing to pay slaves carrying my luggage (with heavy and expensive photo gear) around. Too expensive and morally questionable!

Not sure, but I think there is still a market for non-millionaires.

 

[Otara]

There is - and at the moment from Canons perspective, that market is covered by DSLR's and EF-M. Whats left over is what we're waiting to see.

 

[neuroanatomist]

There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828

How dare you bring data to an opinion fight. I say, how dare you, Sir.

At least people are choosing to totally ignore those data or warp them to fit their beliefs. What a relief that people can still live in their bubble where pandemics are a hoax, vaccines and masks are ineffective infringements on personal freedom, and they’re always right.

 

[reefroamer]

There's no need to speculate on how big the wildlife market is, I've posted real data on this in the past in another thread - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...rf-lens-price-hike-in-japan.41321/post-927828

I've copied the relevant information below:

"Very few photography professionals shoot wildlife, it's one of the smallest subcategories of photography, see table below, from https://petapixel.com/2020/12/02/br...nsights-from-2020-to-project-trends-for-2021/ which also indicates that it's one of the lowest paying photography niches alongside portrait and family. Yes I know the stats are based on online searches instead of surveys, but they're reasonably indicative otherwise they wouldn't be used!"

This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.

 

[entoman]

This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.

You beat me to it. The number of professional photographers is miniscule compared to the number of amateurs, and the photographic genres and motivations of amateurs will be completely different, e.g. it's highly unlikely that "weddings" or "portraits" would be at the top of the list.

I'd guess that the most popular subjects with amateurs would be, in descending order:

Selfies
Family
Travel
Landscape
Animals
Sports
Portrait
Food
Wedding

... and how many amateurs photograph "fashion"?

 

[lote82]

How dare you bring data to an opinion fight. I say, how dare you, Sir.

At least people are choosing to totally ignore those data or warp them to fit their beliefs. What a relief that people can still live in their bubble where pandemics are a hoax, vaccines and masks are ineffective infringements on personal freedom, and they’re always right.

Who ignored it?
As already stated (not only by me!) this data says nothing about non-professionals and nothing about wildlife (this term is not even mentioned in the charts!)
It's only useful as proof for your arrogance and ignorance!

 

[entoman]

To everyone:

For every set of statistics, there will be another set of statistics that directly contradicts it...

Just choose the one that best suits your own viewpoint!

 

[neuroanatomist]

This survey only claims to look at “professional” photographers making money from these categories, which is likely a very small portion of photographers. Every photographer I know has interests in most of these categories, including wildlife. Most wildlife shooters, for example, aren’t money-making professionals. If that was a requirement, the African safari business likely wouldn’t exist.

My bad, I did not dig deeper than the surface.

Amateurs do comprise a much larger market. The real question is what fraction of that market would buy a 7-series camera? We can speculate all we want about that, but Canon has the data. And with those data available to them, they chose to launch just two such bodies in well over a decade.

 

[entoman]

The real question is what fraction of that market would buy a 7-series camera?

One could ask the same questions about lenses such as the RF 600mm F4 or other specialist products.
What fraction of the market buys such lenses?

The real question is whether a product will sell in enough numbers to generate a worthwhile profit.

 

[gregedwards69]

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.

Many photographers and enthusiasts appear to regard FF as the holy grail of camera design. There's more to it than simply cost alone. Reach and camera/lens size come into the crop sensor debate too.

That said, smartphones are rapidly catching up in places where compact cameras shine. Perhaps it won't be long before smartphones become a viable alternative to a crop sensor and FF is the better option for most professionals and enthusiasts.