RF Mount APS-C camera coming second half of 2021 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I still haven't seen a replacement for any of the Rebel series. Don't know how Rebel sales affects the bottom line, but they must be significant volume wise. The M line , particularly those without viewfinders, haven't replaced Rebels and Rp is a single attempt. 2021 will be an interesting year.
Upvote
0
Sure a lot of product design going on here around a CR1 rumor. An R5 with the new AA filter already gives you as much resolution as a 7D II (even though the pixel pitch is 7% coarser) with enormously better AF and a wider field of view so you can find the damn bird. An "R7" with the features dreamed up here would be at least $2500, so what is another 1500 for an R5 if you are already shooing with Big Whites? I think the rumor makes no sense at all and certainly not in the allotted time frame. The 80-100 MP R (R5s?) makes far more sense and that makes the APS-c version even less interesting (and see how that "s" gets confusing). The M line stands on its own as a truly portable ILC system, so this really has no relevance to M other than the note about a "smaller body", which in itself makes no sense for a 7D replacement that has to swing Big Whites.
Upvote
0
Not quite sure how you reach this conclusion. There's no reason they can't price this the same as the RP since it will be a different type of camera. It won't be "higher" than or "lower" than the RP. (Though frankly, I do expect it to cost a lot more than the RP anyway.)
Upvote
0
18-45mm is by all indications a full frame lens. Canon made a 17-40mm in the past for full frame.
There was also no indicators on the source that it was anything other than full frame .. ie: it was a RF 18-45mm no, RF 18-45mm "S" or RF-C or RF-S .. there would have to be an indicator, otherwise mass confusion would reign on what lens worked with what camera.
Also 18-45 is a completely moronic kit lens. (29-70mm).
And a 18-45 certainly wouldn't get me to leave the M's with its stellar 11-22mm either.
Also full frame primes are meaningless on an APS-C as well, as you even lose that 1 EV DOF reducing your field of view.
Upvote
0
Yes, I know that the M50 is the best selling camera in Japan. Canon may want to market to a different segment; after all, they do use different names for different markets. But my point is that an APS-C RF camera doesn't have to be costly.still not nowhere as small as the EOS-M
I mean I know there's tunnel vision here but in certain markets of the world - small cameras sell better than bigger ones.
your suggestion is completely DOA in those markets.
Upvote
0
The resolution of the R was determined by the width, in pixels, of 8K video. 45 MP makes uncropped 8K video much simpler. 50MP would either require a crop or downsampling the width of 50MP down to the width of 45MP. That would create even more heat that the R5 already generates.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378664
Guest
A whole lot of people want small and cheap (below 1000$ for a body) for their APS-C system, hence the great success for all the M cameras out there. They wouldn't never by an expensive RF-S mount APS-C which will be in or near R6 territory pricewise.
The M system will only be obsolete if there will also be Rebel like RF-S cameras some time in the future. And even then I think it will be rather unlikely as the RF-S lenses will mostly be more expensive than any of the M mount lenses.
In my opinion there is a market for both as it was/is also the case with EF-M and EF-S systems in parallel.
Upvote
0
Where do you think the revenue to launch the R5 and R6 came from? The EOS M system is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the face of the planet.
Upvote
0
Economics dictate which lines Canon will not develop further and which they continue to support, unless they’re trying to move you to a new platform.
They will still make EF glass as DSLR users will not move to mirrorless until they are ready. And non Canon users might buy EF to adapt on their bodies.
The m mount will continue as long as it makes a profit and in my opinion continues to support Canon’s market share which is very important to them. So a million (made up number) M series helps maintain that market share - people and retailers are swayed by market leaders. Perhaps no one here, but that’s ok.
If they make an R7 and an M7, sales / profit will dictate whether they develop each of those further. They appeal to different market segments.
Bring on an R7 in a form factor that others have stated - similar to the r5/r6. Share the design costs with an m7 (which then makes more sense to me, coming 2 years after the m6 Ii). Let people buy the m7 the R7, both or neither.
One does not have to impact the other. If they both make a profit, then Canon will expand their resources to accommodate, or perhaps they don’t need to. But as long as it maintains market share and a profit, they will continue to sell and likely produce more designs.
I agree with the sentiment however, that a separate line of RF-S lenses is less likely, unless perhaps if they go the same route with the lower DSLR models.
Edit: oh and if an m7 doesn’t sell, that doesn’t mean they stop developing the whole line. If they have the right financial information, it just means they conclude there isn’t profitability in a high end M, but the rest of the range can continue to be developed, just no longer the “high end”
They will still make EF glass as DSLR users will not move to mirrorless until they are ready. And non Canon users might buy EF to adapt on their bodies.
The m mount will continue as long as it makes a profit and in my opinion continues to support Canon’s market share which is very important to them. So a million (made up number) M series helps maintain that market share - people and retailers are swayed by market leaders. Perhaps no one here, but that’s ok.
If they make an R7 and an M7, sales / profit will dictate whether they develop each of those further. They appeal to different market segments.
Bring on an R7 in a form factor that others have stated - similar to the r5/r6. Share the design costs with an m7 (which then makes more sense to me, coming 2 years after the m6 Ii). Let people buy the m7 the R7, both or neither.
One does not have to impact the other. If they both make a profit, then Canon will expand their resources to accommodate, or perhaps they don’t need to. But as long as it maintains market share and a profit, they will continue to sell and likely produce more designs.
I agree with the sentiment however, that a separate line of RF-S lenses is less likely, unless perhaps if they go the same route with the lower DSLR models.
Edit: oh and if an m7 doesn’t sell, that doesn’t mean they stop developing the whole line. If they have the right financial information, it just means they conclude there isn’t profitability in a high end M, but the rest of the range can continue to be developed, just no longer the “high end”
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I remain unconvinced on this purely because of the form factor. As was discussed in the M thread (sorry I know this is the R7), but is the m form factor acceptable to the rebel owners and vice versa?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
