Is there an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor coming? [CR1]

[zim]

oh and any talk of the end of the m line just because of an R APSC rumour is nonsense, totally different line

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Canon has supported multiple mounts for YEARS, so it's not unlikely for them to do it in the future. That's not denial, that's just fact . Also, don't forget the CN-E based EF lenses (Cinema EOS lenses ) that are not compatible with the EOS R. I don't see Canon retooling their entire Cinema EOS line just because of RF mount. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon make an RF mount based low end Cinema body in the future.

Indeed ...

As others have already pointed out there are many similarities here to the slow but certain demise of film ...

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Economics

1Dx, 5D, 5Dsr, 6D, 7D, 90D, 77D, T7i, T7, XXXXD, SL2 (My list may be out of date). Canon has about 11 DSLR bodies out at the same time... so why do you think that they need/want to reduce it to a single mount?

The M line is small and light and fills the needs of a big market segment. Why would Canon suddenly change it's strategy and not go for all segments?

Economics - cost of R&D has to be reduced in the now shrinking market for cameras

Why develop two 70-200 f/4 lens when one will be fine ?

 

[Architect1776]

I consider it a foregone conclusion that within a few years, future APS-C cameras will have the R mount. If not, then Canon would be discontinuing the 7 series, and that's not going to happen. So the only question left is whether Canon continues the M line. So the M doesn't have upgradability to the R mount. So what, it didn't have an ungrade path to EF either. EF lenses can be used on the M, EF-M lenses can't be used on an EF mount camera. Since the M series seems to be selling well, what would be Canon's motivation to end it?

The difference is that EF lenses could be used on the M but the R lenses cannot be used on the M so you can't just get an M body to add to your kit with a simple adapter like you could with the EF system. Don't know the Canon thought process for this but I am sure they looked at it long and hard before making the R mount configuration.

 

[padam]

I've been following them for a few years as well (2013 onward), and know that Canon can surprise at times. Canon has changed strategies and is now willing to cannibalize DSLR sales to up the specs of upcoming mirrorless cameras. The possible reason we didn't see that happen with the EOS R (lacking specs like the cropped 4K video and missing IBIS) is that it was to late in development for Canon to make major changes without delaying the launch. And those changes to Canon's strategy may be why we're not seeing an EOS M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II until sometime next year.

Generally camera companies don't care too much about each other that directly, even though people like to think they do. There seems to be some similarities between Canon and Nikon releasing a top-level camera and a new FF mirrorless system, but that's pretty much it, their priorities are not the same. IBIS is expected too early at this stage.

The specs for those cameras were determined much earlier than the leaks came about them. (This is the camera that we are planning to do, it will be targeted at these people it will be able to use this parts or technology and will be sold at this price, the end.)
And generally there isn't going to be that big of a jump between the M models, if there would be any last-minute hardware-based change (which I don't believe in at all) it would happen with much more important models.
As long as the M5 Mark II has improvements over the M5 (like any type of 4k, advanced AF, better EVF or a flip-out screen) people will have sufficient reasons to buy or upgrade, that's all they mainly need to care about.

Yes Canon does care focus more on mirrorless than they used to, but that does not mean that they are going to change anything else about their business strategy, complaints on CR or other forums/channels, pitching the idea of switching to other brands in limited numbers, etc. is not a reason to do so.

 

[Sibir Lupus]

Indeed ...

As others have already pointed out there are many similarities here to the slow but certain demise of film ...

Film is a format, not a camera system. If we want to compare apples to apples, then lets look at Nikon's 1 series camera system. It was officially discontinued in July of 2018, but only after Nikon had stopped releasing cameras for the system 3 years prior (which I would bet is around the time Nikon shifted to FF mirrorless development). Canon just recently released the M50, and the M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II are in the pipeline for release sometime next year. Now that I think about it, if Canon was going to kill off the EOS M system they would have already done so seeing as the EOS R and RF mount were in development for quite some time.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Film is a format, not a camera system. If we want to compare apples to apples, then lets look at Nikon's 1 series camera system. It was officially discontinued in July of 2018, but only after Nikon had stopped releasing cameras for the system 3 years prior (which I would bet is around the time Nikon shifted to FF mirrorless development). Canon just recently released the M50, and the M5 Mark II and M6 Mark II are in the pipeline for release sometime next year. Now that I think about it, if Canon was going to kill off the EOS M system they would have already done so seeing as the EOS R and RF mount were in development for quite some time.

Think of it as a pipeline.

Canon are going to have to make a collosal investment to produce a full suite of RF lenses - primes, zooms, super-large whites, tilt-shift.

Yes, there are no doubt going to be some lenses which have been in development for years popping out of the pipeline, but new development will focus on the RF line

Over the next few years flipping mirrors will become as antiquated as plates of silver nitrate

And there will be no need to produce two versions of every lens - nor to artificially divide the mirrorlesd lens population into two - half available in RF and the other half in EF-M

Canon are not nuts - they will develop a single system covering all needs - a fabulous value proposition to customers - any lens fits any camera, putting all their R&D into that

That's my prediction for what it's worth ...

 

[brad-man]

Think of it as a pipeline.

Canon are going to have to make a collosal investment to produce a full suite of RF lenses - primes, zooms, super-large whites, tilt-shift.

Yes, there are no doubt going to be some lenses which have been in development for years popping out of the pipeline, but new development will focus on the RF line

Over the next few years flipping mirrors will become as antiquated as plates of silver nitrate

And there will be no need to produce two versions of every lens - nor to artificially divide the mirrorlesd lens population into two - half available in RF and the other half in EF-M

Canon are not nuts - they will develop a single system covering all needs - a fabulous value proposition to customers - any lens fits any camera, putting all their R&D into that

That's my prediction for what it's worth ...

Think of it as a pipeline.
Canon will develop products that make them money.
Any more questions?

 

[Sibir Lupus]

Yes Canon does care focus more on mirrorless than they used to, but that does not mean that they are going to change anything else about their business strategy, complaints on CR or other forums/channels, pitching the idea of switching to other brands in limited numbers, etc. is not a reason to do so.

A Canon manager said in an interview earlier this year that they are willing to roll our more mirrorless cameras even if it means eating into their DSLR sales. From viewing Canon's strategy over the years with the EOS M, they were never willing to sacrifice DSLR sales then. This change in strategy and continued development into the EOS M line is what leads me to believe the EOS M line will become the Rebel and XXD line, and the EOS R line will cover the rest (7D, 6D, 5D, 1DX) in the future.

Interview referenced: https://www.dpreview.com/news/80355...nnibalize-dslr-sales-with-mirrrorless-cameras

 

[brad-man]

The difference is that EF lenses could be used on the M but the R lenses cannot be used on the M so you can't just get an M body to add to your kit with a simple adapter like you could with the EF system. Don't know the Canon thought process for this but I am sure they looked at it long and hard before making the R mount configuration.

The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.

 

[tron]

Since the title of the thread has a question mark and it's characterized as a CR1 allow me to answer:

NO (CR2.99)

 

[brad-man]

Since the title of the thread has a question mark and it's characterized as a CR1 allow me to answer:

NO (CR2.99)

You are violating the forum rules by staying on topic...

 

[privatebydesign]

1Dx, 5D, 5Dsr, 6D, 7D, 90D, 77D, T7i, T7, XXXXD, SL2 (My list may be out of date). Canon has about 11 DSLR bodies out at the same time... so why do you think that they need/want to reduce it to a single mount?

The M line is small and light and fills the needs of a big market segment. Why would Canon suddenly change it's strategy and not go for all segments?

Currently on Canon USA you can buy 22 DSLR's:-

1. SL1
2. SL2
3. T5
4. T5i
5. T6
6. T6i
7. T6s
8. T7
9. T7i
10. 70D
11. 77D
12. 80D
13. 7D MkII
14. 6D
15. 6D MkII
16. 5D MkIII
17. 5D MkIV
18. 5D MkIV + C-Log
19. 5DS R
20. 5DS
21. 1DX
22. 1DX MkII

 

[mirage]

Canon might bring crop-sensored EOS R body as stop-gap measure (like APS-H back in the day) to replace 7D class DSLRs ... until they have solved their FF sensor read-out / DIGIC performance problem.

But there will never be RF-S crop lenses. All lenses for R mount will be FF capable.

EOS M / EF-M lineup will fully replace all crop DSLRs from Rebel up to and including 80D (except 7D class) and EF-S lens lineup.

Already now customers can pretty much have the same functionality also mirrorfree with M5/M6/M50 and current EF-M lens lineup. Momentum will shift further towards EOS M with next bodies (M5/M6 II). No real technical need for a 90D any longer ... although Canon will sure offer it to take money from those who prefer "chunkier cameras with a nice mirror slap".

In short: EOS M and EF- M are here to stay, EF-S and crop slappers are on way out.

 

[mirage]

Currently on Canon USA you can buy 22 DSLR's:-

and many more SKUs due to all sorts of "kits".

And globally times 3 for "continentally marketing- differentiated versions" of many crop EOS DSLRs - US/North America (Rebel), Asia (Kiss), Europe/ROW (xxxd) ...

Canon does not mind handling bloated number of SKUs. Not until some high-profile, ultra- high fees business consulting gurus tell them that they could save a s*itload of money ...

 

[-pekr-]

The reason EF/EF-S lenses can be used on the EF-M mount is because the M mount has a reduced flange distance which allows for the introduction of an adapter to maintain the focal point on the sensor. The R mount also has a reduced flange distance, so there is no room for an adapter. The EF-M/EF adapter was an easy way for Canon to market the M. When the M was introduced, there were only 2 lenses available, the 18-55 and the 22. With the adapter, you could use any EF* lenses that you own, giving the camera far more versatility. Now there are a number of EF-M lenses available and so the adapter is no longer "needed". If you used the M as a backup camera, this sucks. I use the M as an easy to carry camera system, so I don't care.
The EF-M/EF adapter is much like the nifty R/EF adapter that allows use of a filter between the camera and EF lenses. It's only good for as long as you use EF lenses on your R camera. It will not work for R lenses, so once you no longer are using EF lenses on your R camera it becomes a $300 paperweight.

I think that ppl don't care much for:

- why/if EF/EF-S lens "accidentally" work for the M mount
- what is a technical mumbo jumbo for a flange distances and physical limitations

What do ppl care is:

- why Canon has created two MILC with lens incompatible systems. Forget EF and no excuses here.

Simply put, in a DSLR world, you could plan ahead and buy EF lens, which you could put on the APS-C body. Many ppl did so, including us. Not so in the MILC world. So you use your M for a travel. Great for you. But many would like to use it as a video option (I know lots of guys using 80D for video), who would welcome interoperatiblity being planned in the first place, not as an oversight cured by an EF lens.

That's imo why there has to be EOS-R with an APS-C sensor, or in a reverse - EOS-M with an EF-R mount. I wonder, how much bigger/bulkier would M5/6 be, carrying EF-R adapter (47 to 54mm diameter increase), and if EF-Rs lens designed for this APS-C combination could be any smaller that their EF-R counterpart?

Paraphrasing your own words - any other questions?

 

[Stu_bert]

I think the problem here is none of us have access to Canon marketing / sales data. Plus I think there is an assumption here that Canon knows exactly where the market will go, and I don't think they do exactly (nor does anyone). The market is shrinking, and gyrating towards the photo enthusiasts & professionals. But while there is a market for people who want a little bit more than their phone can do, then Canon and others will operate in this market. Money is money after all. When that market dies, well then you have to have other revenue streams.

And as this forum shows, people want different things. The entry level market(s) are the largest. We have different smart phones, we have different bodies - be that a fixed lens/body with a standard zoom range, or a monster zoom range Powershots, or for a lightweight ILC (EF-M).

The R lens mount will eventually be the death of the EF development. EF lenses will exist for many, many years and will work on the R bodies, but eventually they will stop being developed purely for economics. Canon can do more with the R - either same size and cheaper, or faster and same cost.

The EF-M has those same advantages over the EF-S

dSLRs will exist for probably the next generation, and then they will also no longer be developed. So I think there will be a IDx mk III for 2019/2020, but by the 2024 Olympics there will be a mirrorless only. And frankly it will look very similar to the 1DX, but it will be cheaper for Canon to manufacturer. I put the 5x in the same category.

So that leaves the APS market which I might try and put into 2. The entry level and the Prosumer level. Perhaps the 80d/90d bridges those, but I don't think that it matters per se.

• For that entry level market I wonder how many EF lenses they own, and how many of those are Ls.
• How many of the Prosumer market / Pro market (be that APS or FF) have bought a entry level SL2 or xxxx range?
• For the Prosumer / Pro APS, I wonder how many EF-S lenses they own and how many of those are NOT Ls.
• Finally, I wonder how many entry level do indeed transition, other than the sort of people who frequent here, and just how many of those lenses they put on their Prosumer APS bodies when they upgrade or replace them with nice L.
• I know people would like to have an upgrade path, but how many actually use it?

I presume Canon has a reasonable view on all of the above

[As an aside, the tablet & smartphone world has I would guess a similar impact on the computing world, and there are reasonable parallels]

I think that Canon would like to entice most Prosumer APS users to go onto an R body, and sure, with a R lens. They can take their EF lenses with them. Would there be a APS in a near identical body? Most likely, if they can drive down the costs sufficiently, and they can match the 7Dx functionality (viewfinder, AF, speed). If not in this generation, then we will see a 7D III and the IV will be mirrorless.

I think the entry level APS is the most interesting, and I wonder if Canon sees the EF-M in that space, where people can take their EF-S lenses with them. And that very few go across to the R / EF space

Canon must, one hope, have sufficient data which resulted in the EF-M mount design and the R design being (intentionally) incompatible. Ultimately I don't think they truly know, but they are hoping that the segmentation of the EF-M due to incompatible lens mounts isn't going to hurt them.

Finally, I am guessing part of the reason to go for the 6DII or perhaps what everyone feels should have been the 6DII is because they are still developing / stabilising the tech for the higher end and also testing the market. And it's the market and the data they must be continually watching which helps them decide what happens and how the strategy will change. I would guess they have designs which can be either mirrorless or dSLR style, again depending on how well they see the initial R sales go. And of course that isn't just the APS side, the same in the dSLR side.

 

[Timedog]

The m line is a mistake imo. Should have kept the mount size the same. Upgrading to better cameras but keeping the same lenses is what kept me on Canon cameras. Are they gonna have RF-S, RF, and m lenses? That too much, too confusing for newbies, too much R&D cost to have to make lenses for 3 systems.

I just want a mirrorless 80d or 7d replacement with an RF mount, with RF-S lenses that I can use on my aps-c AND full frame (since the EOS-R has crop mode!).

The existence of the M series makes this not as much of a forgone conclusion.

 

[mirage]

many interesting points. Yes it is a fundamental decision with major implications for next 20+ years to enter mirrorfree ILC universe with one or two lens mounts.

Fuji: APS-C / X-mount and 44x33 MF / G-mount. 2 completely separate product lines, 2 stops apart. Everybody understands that X means compact and G is large, but offers even higher "technical" IQ.Nobody in their right mind asks for an adapter to use X lenses "in crop mode" on a GFX camera.

Nikon: Z-mount designed with no compromise for FF image circle. Will be interesting to see if Nikon will also launch APS-C sensored Z-bodies and if so, whether they will start a lineup of crop-Z lenses. As they did in DSLR era with full FX and limited DX lens lineups for F-mount. Disadvantage of strategy: really compact APS-C bodies not possible with physically large Z-mount, so why bother at all then with APS-C?

Sony: went with 1 mount, designed for small crop bodies and small cro lenses - E-mount for Nex/5000/6000 bodies. Decided to use same mount also for FF later on. Advantage: really compact FF cameras possible. Disadvantage: imited "design space" for FF lenses.

Canon: continues 2 mount strategy optimized for FF and APS-C image circle. APS-C market will continue to be served with EOS-M / EF-M for segments from entry level (small entry level camera in kit with 1 or 2 zooms) all the way to prosumers/enthusiasts (for first or second system) wanting small, light, capable and well affordable gear up to "M5/80D territory and a bit beyond" plus some matching lenses up to EF-M 32/1.4 territory.

"Pro" and Semi-Pro users and sufficiently affluent enthusiasts will buy EOS R/FF gear. Exactly as they did in DSLR era.

Underlying notion: longer term dedicated imaging gear will only make sense with FF, smaller imaging circle will not offer "worthwhile enough, clearly visible" IQ advantages over "multi-functional mobile devices with computational imaging technology". so yes, EOS M/EF-M will go away eventually, but we are a number of years away from that point. EF-S has reached end of line already, EF is in "legacy, support but dont develop further" mode.

I think Canon's strategic approach is "right on the money".
As in 1987, they are taking the right lens mount decision. Luckily this time around transition EF -> RF and EF-S -> EF-M is simple and painless for customers.

 

[mirage]

That's imo why there has to be EOS-R with an APS-C sensor, or in a reverse - EOS-M with an EF-R mount. I wonder, how much bigger/bulkier would M5/6 be, carrying EF-R adapter (47 to 54mm diameter increase), and if EF-Rs lens designed for this APS-C combination could be any smaller that their EF-R counterpart?

sorry pekr but ...

EOS M with R mount would be "larger camera bodies and lenses" for a market segment that is all about "compact size" and it would not be compatible with any EF-M lens out there. So ... probably not.

"RF lens to EF-M mount" adapter physically not possible due to only 2mm FFD difference (20 vs 18mm).

mount parameters - FFD, throat width - do matter, whether ppl are interested in the subject or not ... physics and laws of nature apply whether one believes in them or not. ;-)