You can adapt EF lenses to an M body.
He said "I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford". No M camera is high end enough to come close to the 7D. At least not in ergonomics and build quality.
You can adapt EF lenses to an M body.
It doesn't compete with the M system at all, in my opinion. The vast availability of lenses, better AF, better weather sealing, different ergonomics, more rugged, etc., will put this in an ASP-c class all it's own. I'd expect the body to be a slightly smaller version of the R5.Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?
Interesting that it is supposed to be a 'smaller footprint' than the R5/R6. In which case, a lot of the native RF lenses (and adapted big EF ones) are going to look awfully big attached to it. It'll be quite a bit smaller than the old 7 series bodies. How can they then not introduce smaller RF-S lenses? The unlikelihood of Canon developing yet another lens mount is the reason I've always discounted an RF APSC body.
Talk about off topic. Starting with the first reply. Why are we talking so much about the M series and EF-M in a thread that had no mention of them in the title and original post. This should be a discussion about APS-C body in the R family with RF lenses which should generate a lot of excitement on its own. There are other threads to discuss the M.
Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.
Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.
Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.
But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?
Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.
Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."
Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras already handle cropped lenses.
I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.
I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.
The R5 is a compelling option for me to replace both my 5DIV AND my 7Dii, because the R5 is now faster, has incredible autofocus, and almost has the same pixel density of the 7DMarkii. Equivalent crop section of R5 is 17.58Mpix. Think that’s a coincidence that they made it just under the 20.1 mpix of the 7Dii? Like, they couldn’t push the R5 to 50Mpix, so it would have same density. Also just under the pixel count of the 5DSR as well.
I think there is a market for the R7, but it would need to have at least the 32Mpix sensor to be a huge step up in pixel density for birders. And it needs the ergonomics to handle big whites. And hell, maybe they will make some RF-S lenses at some point to sell more options to those that go down that path.
But I think the market will still exist for all 3 segments.
my 2 cents
By this logic, Canon should make a very high MP camera with a crop mode, so the 7D folks can have their "reach." There's currently a camera out there that resembles this, and it's the R5. Buuuuutttt... it's expensive, more so than they imagine an R7 would be. And if we wait for the (occasionally rumored) R5s/R3, it will probably be even more expensive.
M6 mk2 sensor
R6 speed minus 2 fps
RP body upgraded and weather sealed