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

Jan 4, 2022
222
168
Or could the R7 be a sub-$800 FF body that launches with a 24-105 non-L kit, a 24-105 + 100-400 dual lens kit, and the 18-45 as an inexpensive UWA zoom to go with it?

The market is shrinking. Canon doesn’t need 4 levels of cameras with a full staircase on each floor, like the xD/xxD/xxxD/xxxxD nomenclature from the DSLR heyday.
What would be the significant difference compared to RP?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I think it's pretty obvious that IF the "R7" actually exists, and IF it is a 90D in RF clothes, that Canon would be compelled to provide it with a kit lens - probably a 18-135mm, or possibly something more ambitious, given that RF lenses tend to be better specified than EF or EF-s lenses.

On the other hand, IF this "R7" was to be a fully-fledged sports/wildlife body in R3 clothes, it would be aimed at an entirely different sector of the market - and that sector would likely already have an R5, R6 or R3, and would be buying the "R7" as a second body. Which means they'd probably be happy to use full frame RF lenses on both bodies.

I'd really like to think that this was going to be a sports/wildlife camera, but a hi-res "R5S" with the same pixel density as a 32MP "R7" would be a better choice, assuming that it could maintain 20fps without buffer issues.

But what I think is far more likely, is that we'll see a more consumer-orientated "budget" APS-C to compete with models from Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,861
I've interacted with most of the DPR staff at one time or another, what's your point about Rishi?
He had a rather extreme and immature reaction to having his mistakes pointed out to him.

Having said that, you're correct that DPR as a whole is not immature, although I do not trust their conclusions due to bias, which seemed to increase following their acquisition by Amazon.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I do not trust their conclusions due to bias
I see a huge amount of ridiculous tribalism in the DPR comments section, and some in the forums, but I don't see any major bias among DPR staff for or against any particular brand, although obviously each has their own preferred system.

But we're straying off-subject here ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.

I declare shenanigans.
What is the term Canon used in their quarterly report. Was it "streamlined engineering"?
Did we see a patent for the EF 600mm III with an attached adapter?
Perhaps a patent isn't required to glue an adapter on an EF-S lens.
 
Upvote 0
If they canon wants to eat up Fuji's market, which is admittedly really big, they'll need to come up with a premium L line of crop sensor lenses.

15mm (24mm eq)
22mm (35mm eq)
53mm (85mm eq)
60mm macro (100mm macro eq)
15-45mm (24-70mm eq)
15-65mm (24-105mm eq)

Fuji's crop stuff is good, I've been shooting w/ it for 2 full years now. It's nice because the equivalent system is more than 9oz lighter (when you account for lens and body w/ batteries), x-pro2 vs r5.

R5 does got the X-Pro 2 beat in cinema features for sure, but for shooting all day long events like weddings, it for sure is nicer on my hand. I quit weddings in 2014 because I was having major wrist issues and had to move to more supported studio photography like fashion work.

I sort of see Canon like the Toyota of the camera industry. Large hulking behemoth, selling Toyota Camrys, 4runners, Tacomas, Corollas, Tundras, and Highlanders. Nothing exceptionally sparkly. They may sell the GT86 and the Supra, but they miss the mark in terms of what the market is asking for, and when they don't sell well, they add features at the worst time (like at the beginning of a recession) and justify killing off a line.

They floundered with the EOS M Line, hopefully they'll do better this time amidst a burgeoning global recession mid-pandemic.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Blue Zurich

Traditional Grip
Jan 22, 2022
243
364
Swingtown
The only purpose to APS-C is size and weight. I suppose it’s less expensive too. But what good is a slightly smaller, lighter body is it doesn’t also have smaller, lighter lenses to go with it?

I see some here don’t see the need for those lenses, preferring to use full size RF lenses. But then, what’s the point to the APS-C body? You can always crop the FF image down in post.

the biggest complaints over the years from those using APS-C bodies has been the poor selection of lenses and the less than stellar quality of those that do exist.

so will Canon treat this as just a consumer level body using FF lenses, a consumer level body with a handful of mediocre lenses, or as a semi pro, or even pro level body with some pro level lenses?

I assume a lot depends on how worried they are over the amount the latter would cannibalize their FF bodies and lenses. Besides, I thought the push these days was “everything FF.”
Yet how many did and still do use the 7D series with EF-L lenses? I know I did and with wonderful results when able to stay at 6400 iso or lower. I never for once thought APS-C meant smaller, lighter weight. It's not M43 after all. It was just a choice, more choices, better for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
As usual, someone is mistaking "lack of development" for "about to be killed." It's a mature product line that is selling well.
I didn’t say it’s “about to be killed”. But I do feel that even as a mature product it will simply be kept on life support by canon, until it’s eventually phased out, similar to Sony did with the A mount.

What I did say however is I am an M user. I’m quite happy with it too.

I’m quite aware it’s a top-selling camera system in Japan, but what about outside of Japan? And I just wonder where the future lies for the M system if RF-S comes to pass.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Stig Nygaard

EOS R7, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
275
462
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
We haven’t seen a single published patent application for an RF lens with an APS-C image height.

I found these APS-C - maybe RF - on Canon News:





4 fullframe + 1 APS-C:





But no super-wide zooms and no standard-zooms that hits bulls eye for me (nothing seem to really compete with the EF-S 15-85mm). Most of them (as far as I can see) also requires optical correction in the wide end. I hate that trend :-( ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I'd be pleasantly surprised to see this occurring when sales of ILCs have dropped to year 2006 levels.

vZrfIyZ.png
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I'd be pleasantly surprised to see this occurring when sales of ILCs have dropped to year 2006 levels.

vZrfIyZ.png
Most interesting thing to me is that mirrorless sales are flat while DSLRs have dropped. Mirrorless looks successful when you look at percentages, but not so much when you look at raw numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,098
12,861
I see a huge amount of ridiculous tribalism in the DPR comments section, and some in the forums, but I don't see any major bias among DPR staff for or against any particular brand
Some of their articles praising Nikon over other systems had a buried footnote, “This is sponsored content, created with the support of Nikon.”

DPR spent years bashing Canon’s low ISO DR (including in their action-oriented bodies that had better high ISO performance than competitors) and praising Sony and Nikon (often with Sony sensors) for low ISO DR. Then, when the Nikon D5 came out with substantially less low ISO DR than other current Canon and Sony bodies, they praised the D5’s high ISO performance and said its low ISO DR was fine unless perhaps you were a hardcore landscape shooter.

although obviously each has their own preferred system.
That’s part of the bias, albeit less overt. Canon gear is reviewed by people who are not actual users of Canon gear. On one occasion, automatic AF point selection was deemed poor because it didn’t match the behavior of his chosen system, despite the fact that the Canon AF system was performing as intended; the reviewer was unaware of how the Canon AF system was designed to behave. Simply RTFM would have helped there, and also in the case where AF tracking was denigrated even though the reviewer was using settings that the manual recommended against.

But we're straying off-subject here ;)
That is the nature of forums. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0