RF Mount APS-C camera coming second half of 2021 [CR2]

mpeeps

Lovin' life on the Central Coast
CR Pro
Dec 5, 2013
97
80
California
www.mpeeples.com
Don't do it. Go full frame. The 7D taught me digital photography, the 6D let me know when I was getting better. Love the R but am really looking forward to R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

dick ranez

I'm New Here
Apr 26, 2013
19
9
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb34 and SteveC

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
516
497
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible

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.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,402
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I disagree. All they need to sell a ton of RF APS-C cameras is to bundle it with a 15-55mm zoom as a kit lens. Most photography beginners buy an APS-C camera with a kit lens, and then maybe buy a nifty fifty for low-light. RF mount already have the RF35mm f/1.8 IS for $449 & RF85mm f/2 Macro IS for $599, both with 1:2 macro capability that makes them very versatile. We already heard many rumors about cheaper lenses coming to the RF-line.

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.
ac8fd4358ae944e3b7ff12ecc9a2a47b.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,402
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Canon has been on a patent spree for RF lenses including focal ranges more akin to APS-C on RF mount (RF 18-45), and patented several slower primes (albeit full frame patents).
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.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,402
Canada
www.canonnews.com
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.
that's called the EOS-M.. The M50 effectively killed the Rebels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip V and SteveC

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
152
145
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.
ac8fd4358ae944e3b7ff12ecc9a2a47b.png
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.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
I do agree I can't imagine this killing the EOS-M series, but your comment did make me very curious about what it would look like if Canon just simply remade similar designs to the EF-M lenses in an RF-S format. I know the RF mount is bigger, but would be curious to know how small would be possible.

7D users don't care about "small". They care about fast handling ergonomics and durability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
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

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert
D

Deleted member 378664

Guest
With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.

If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.
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.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
With an (Let's call it RF-S) mount, I see no reason to keep the EOS M line going. They don't have very many lenses anyway and they can simply tweak existing optic formulations for the new flange distance and mount. I don't see it being super resource intensive. I see replacing the M line as a good investment if Canon is to take the mirrorless game seriously.

If Canon did this smartly, they would've went full frame mirrorless first THEN build their APS-C line on that. They did this backwards.

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.
 
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”
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,843
2,192
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?

It doesn't. Those are two completely different markets with two completely different sets of buyers. But you already know that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert