Opinion: Let's redo the APS-C lineup in 2025. Please.

[Richard CR]

This year from Canon seems to be the year in which almost the entire full-frame lineup is refreshed. We have seen the R5 Mark II, R1, and later this year if rumors hold, the R6 Mark III. Outside of the R8, which was only released in early 2023, Canon mostly completed an entire system refresh of their full-frame cameras. Notably missing is the APS-C lineup, which is most likely the least competitive of Canon’s RF cameras.

Opinion: Let’s redo the APS-C lineup in 2025. Please.

This year from Canon seems to be the year in which almost the entire full-frame lineup is refreshed. We have seen the R5 Mark II, R1, and later this year if rumors hold, the R6 Mark III.

www.canonrumors.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

So far in 2024, APS-C lens announcements outnumber FF lens announcements. Granted, the two APS-C lenses are niche products. But Canon seems way behind their usual pace for lenses. Unless that pace picks up dramatically in the remaining 1/3 of this year, I’d prefer they concentrate on launching new lenses in 2025. YMMV.

 

[Richard CR]

So far in 2024, APS-C lens announcements outnumber FF lens announcements. Granted, the two APS-C lenses are niche products. But Canon seems way behind their usual pace for lenses. Unless that pace picks up dramatically in the remaining 1/3 of this year, I’d prefer they concentrate on launching new lenses in 2025. YMMV.

lenses for sure.

Sounds like this year is wrapping up the Z line.

as far as APS-C lenses - they could easily do the EF-M 32mm, 22mm which were very good lenses. the macro 28mm was a good starter lens as well for people to get into the RF-S system.

none of that is difficult, just takes some will for canon to do it.

lens and camera body development and release I do believe is handled by different groups within imaging and obviously the fabrication is handled differently as well.

 

[Z-06]

Spot on, on your wishes for R7 MK II - an APSC R5 M2. I would pay extra to get those capabilities than the current piece of specimen, which is missing so dearly.

Price-wise 7D was equivalent to 6D, so keeping those two on par in R system is not an issue while giving R7 better features than R6. It\'s like a fork in the road - you get a BMW M3 or a 550e for almost the same price, you decide what\'s important to you.

 

[High Peak John]

Having been a 7DII user for years, I bought a 7R. Its just not equivalent. Doesnt focus track as well and ergonomically I get the impression they lost real estate and just shoehorned things in where possible. So you end up accidentally changing settings because you have to put your thumbs somewhere!!! Which in turn leads me to be constantly checking my settings instead of concentrating on my fast moving subjects. Canon. Please give me a proper Mirrorless 7DII equivalent. At the same time can we have a 15-85 lens please.

 

[koenkooi]

None of the APS-C models have a sensor fast enough for acceptable (to me, at least) electronic shutter usage. The 'fastest' one, the R7 is still more than twice as slow as the R8. If Canon does give us an M200 style RF body, I would like it to have an R8 grade ES.

Till that happens, my R8 will keep functioning well as my small travel body.

 

[Maximilian]

Thanks again @Richard CR, for a well written and summed up article.

...Keep nothing from the R100. Drive a truck over it. Burn the design plans. ...

Even though expected, this was the highlight. Esp. the truck part. Special thanks for that.

R50 Mark II

Of all the cameras, I think this is the one that is probably right where it needs to be. I’m not even sure it needs a Mark II next year. ...

Here I've got something to add:
I was very close to buying a R50 as small travel camera.
But the purely "new" hotshoe was the killer to me.
If I wanted to add a compact flash like the Speedlite EL-100 I would need the adapter. DOA design IMO.
Another deal breaker for a compact double zoom kit was the RF-S 55-210mm f5-7.1 IS STM.
Compared to the EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS STM I trade off 40 mm at the long end and some aperture from 5.6 to 7.1
But the size is almost the same (with adapter). Just "Meh!"

So I kept my money here. And hope - like you - for a camera in rangefinder style.

 

[Richard CR]

Thanks again @Richard CR, for a well written and summed up article.


Even though expected, this was the highlight. Esp. the truck part. Special thanks for that.

I think everyone knew I'd say SOMETHING about the R100

Here I've got something to add:
I was very close to buying a R50 as small travel camera.
But the purely "new" hotshoe was the killer to me.
If I wanted to add a compact flash like the Speedlite EL-100 I would need the adapter. DOA design IMO.

oh i totally forgot about that. thanks for reminding me.

As far as the lenses - none of the excite me. the UWA is okay but the rest? No thanks.

If I was getting an APS-C kit it would be either sigma or tamron lenses and no canon.

 

[jam05]

I got tired of waiting for Canon. They decided that they knew better than their consumers and a mirror hump is what everyone wants on their compact camera. Not. Well I simply replaced my M6 mk 2 with a Panasonic S9 and will match my picture styles to LUTs. Every manufacturer except Canon RF devices now have a new humpless compact.

 

[Richard CR]

I got tired of waiting for Canon. They decided that that they knew better than their consumers and a mirror hump is what everyone wants on their compact camera. Not. Well I simply replaced my M6 mk 2 with a Panasonic S9 and will match my picture styles to LUTs. Every manufacturer except Canon RF devices now have a new humpless compact.

how do you find the S9?

I liked that camera from Panasonic. what glass do you use with it?

 

[LSXPhotog]

The sky is the limit on what Canon could do with its APS-C lineup. I wonder if their strategy has changed now that producing a full-frame camera like the R8 can be delivered to the market at such a low price point? Perhaps the upper echelon of APS-C cameras hovering around the $1000-1600 mark are "good enough" for Canon right now? I think we can almost all agree that the R100 doesn't even belong in production with its lack of touch screen and incredibly dumbed down feature set. But the R50 could be rehoused into something with a smaller footprint and that may be popular? The R7 Mark II is a camera I'm very eager to get released. If it tries to remain at its launch price point, I fear that we'll see less features that we want. I, like many others, want a 7D Mark II kind of camera. Build and ergonomics similar to the R5II/R6II that can take a grip and give us a true stacked sensor e-shutter that competes with the X-H2S...which is actually not all that fast, but still performs well.

But it can't end there, we need lenses!! I really want to see a port over of the EF-M 22mm and EF-M 32mm...but PLEASE weather seal them. I'm not sure if allowing Sigma to produce APS-C lenses indicates that it's even more unlikely that we'll see these from Canon...but it would be a shame if those two lens formulas never get used again - they were brilliant!

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I disagree with the statement in the Op-Ed that the R7 Mark II must be under $2000, at least not if it's a genuine high end APS-C body as the 7D and 7D2 were by the standards of their day. Canon has painted itself into a corner by calling its mirrorless 90D successor the R7 - if it had done the honourable thing and called it the R90 we'd be all set for an "R7" which could sell for as much as £/$2500. The OM-1 Mark II launched at £2,200 so surely £300 more for a much bigger stacked BSI sensor, and the Canon name behind it, would be no problem at all.

Yes Canon needs a decent APS-C body for under £/$2000. But that doesn't mean there can't also be a 'flagship' APS-C for more.

 

[neuroanatomist]

oh i totally forgot about that. thanks for reminding me.

Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...

 

[Richard CR]

I disagree with the statement in the Op-Ed that the R7 Mark II must be under $2000, at least not if it's a genuine high end APS-C body as the 7D and 7D2 were by the standards of their day. Canon has painted itself into a corner by calling its mirrorless 90D successor the R7 - if it had done the honourable thing and called it the R90 we'd be all set for an "R7" which could sell for as much as £/$2500. The OM-1 Mark II launched at £2,200 so surely £300 more for a much bigger stacked BSI sensor, and the Canon name behind it, would be no problem at all.

Yes Canon needs a decent APS-C body for under £/$2000. But that doesn't mean there can't also be a 'flagship' APS-C for more.

The 7D was $1600 and the 7D Mark II was $1800. Nikon D500 - $1500

I personally think keeping it under $2000 is reasonable. but you are right because the point of comparison could easily be the X-H2 - and that's a $2500 camera.

But I think if it goes over the $2000 then it's got to have the performance in stills and video to match. the problem with a $2500 camera body is that there's no damned APS-C lenses to go on it. I'd suggest that Canon would then need a 15-45mm F2.8-4 (or something similar) kit lens for the camera (variable aperture to keep the size / weight down)

But at least make it worthy of the 7

 

[Juppeck]

I assume that Canon has developed APS-C Bodies again, because the customers who don't want to move to Full frame, would use other brands and Sony is a strong competioneer. APS-C is often a just an entry to the brand. They move later to a Fullframe.
And Canon has licensed APC-S Lenses for RF to Sigma and Tamron. They will close the gap. I can imagine, that Canon don't plan to invest into APS-C lenses more. as it required. The same reason explains why Canon will never license the Fullframe Lense to thirdparties. This business is the one who Canon dig the gold.
Why you don'rt use the EF-RF Adapter and the chealer EF-Lenses instead? I use my EF-Lenses for an EOS R and R5 quite successfully.

 

[Richard CR]

The sky is the limit on what Canon could do with its APS-C lineup. I wonder if their strategy has changed now that producing a full-frame camera like the R8 can be delivered to the market at such a low price point? Perhaps the upper echelon of APS-C cameras hovering around the $1000-1600 mark are "good enough" for Canon right now? I think we can almost all agree that the R100 doesn't even belong in production with its lack of touch screen and incredibly dumbed down feature set. But the R50 could be rehoused into something with a smaller footprint and that may be popular? The R7 Mark II is a camera I'm very eager to get released. If it tries to remain at its launch price point, I fear that we'll see less features that we want. I, like many others, want a 7D Mark II kind of camera. Build and ergonomics similar to the R5II/R6II that can take a grip and give us a true stacked sensor e-shutter that competes with the X-H2S...which is actually not all that fast, but still performs well.

But it can't end there, we need lenses!! I really want to see a port over of the EF-M 22mm and EF-M 32mm...but PLEASE weather seal them. I'm not sure if allowing Sigma to produce APS-C lenses indicates that it's even more unlikely that we'll see these from Canon...but it would be a shame if those two lens formulas never get used again - they were brilliant!

without a doubt the EF-M 22, 28 and 32 (especially the 32!!!) should be ported over. the 32 was very sharp lens.

 

[Richard CR]

I assume that Canon has developed APS-C Bodies again, because the customers who don't want to move to Full frame, would use other brands and Sony is a strong competioneer. APS-C is often a just an entry to the brand. They move later to a Fullframe.
And Canon has licensed APC-S Lenses for RF to Sigma and Tamron. They will close the gap. I can imagine, that Canon don't plan to invest into APS-C lenses more. as it required. The same reason explains why Canon will never license the Fullframe Lense to thirdparties. This business is the one who Canon dig the gold.
Why you don'rt use the EF-RF Adapter and the chealer EF-Lenses instead? I use my EF-Lenses for an EOS R and R5 quite successfully.

that's fine using the EF adapter, and you can even get the one with drop in filters to save even more moolah over time.

but that entirely depends on what you shoot - do you shoot long, or do you shoot wide. Wide (which is my wheelhouse mostly) is mixed bag even with an EF adapter. After you past 50mm or so focal, you probably won't even have much of a difference in terms of lens size. if you use cheaper third party EF adapters, then just simply keep the EF adapter on each lens and voila you are done.

but the sigma and tamron are fantastic lenses for UWA - so at least we have two credible third party options.

 

[Maximilian]

Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...

Here, Canon should have either moved fully new flash and hotshoe.
Or - as I would have expected - leave ALL consumer grade (R50/R100, EL-100 and smaller) fully in the old hotshoe world.

 

[Richard CR]

Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...

that and the complete lack of battery grips boggle my mind.

 

[mbtn]

I know some will disagree, but if they need to keep the price point down on the r72, they can drop the manual shutter. They would obviously have to increase readout speed, but I only use the noisy machine gun shutter because the rolling shutter in ES is terrible.