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

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
506
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
I think the R7 will be quite expensive, probably similar to the R6 or a bit less
It’s not aimed at beginners but people who want a high performance camera for wildlife especially birders like me and I’d happily pay about the same as a R6 for one
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
It's certainly conceivable that they'd keep both, that's why I said maybe. Until this rumour I was pretty firmly in the camp that M wasn't going anywhere any time soon. With that said, I have no more of a crystal ball than anyone else in here.

How the hell it follows? My logic behind why M could disappear is based on a few things:
  1. The rumour here from a few days ago that said EF-M may disappear in 2021 (CR1 in all fairness)
  2. With a crop sensor camera in RF mount, Canon would be maintaining 3 different mounts for crop sensor cameras, and only one of those is an easy transition pathway to more expensive bodies (RF-S), though one could argue EF-S isn't a bad transition to RF due to the adapters available. I could certainly see Canon working to reduce the number of ecosystems they're supporting in a dramatically shrinking camera market, but whether EF-S or EF-M would become the sacrificial lamb remains to be seen.
  3. Past reports have implied that many manufacturers are intending to put more emphasis on higher-margin and higher-end bodies. I think that priority focus may lead to Canon trying to create more ways to get buyers into the RF mount, which makes sense for creating an RF APS-C camera which can direct first-time buyers toward the RF mount. If Canon wants to move people up market, and the top of the market will be RF full frame cameras, then making very affordable APS-C RF bodies will likely become a higher priority.
  4. EF-M fills a niche which a lot of people really like (myself included) - very small and portable and relatively price conscious. No question that there is a market for those products - the M50 still shows that today. However, if an APS-C RF mount camera can get to a comparable size as an EF-M body (likely in coordination with some size-conscious lenses), it may hold a very similar niche as EF-M but have greater value to Canon as a transition pathway.
Anyway, it's anyone's guess, but with 3 APS-C sensor cameras being maintained, I could certainly understand if Canon were to offload one or more based on past rumours. But again, I can't see the future any more than anyone else.

1. That rumour has so many holes in it that it makes swiss cheese look "weather sealed".

2. You're mistaking APS-C for "entry level." An R7 or R90 will not be entry level. The entry level into the RF mount will continue to be FF, such as the EOS RP and its eventual successors. EF-S will be gone before EF-M. You can take that to the bank. What was the most recent new EF-S lens? How many have there been in the last decade? Cosmetic updates with the same glass don't count. Only those with new optical formulae or STM AF.

3. Most EF-S and EF-M buyers get a camera, a lens or two, and never "upgrade" to anything else. In a few years (not months, years - as in five or seven or ten) they will think about getting a newer "up-to-date" camera that will be in the same market segment as the older one they're replacing. That is if their phone isn't "good enough" or "better" by then.

4. EF-M isn't going anywhere. Whether there is or is not an R7 or R90 will have absolutely no bearing on how long EOS M remains in Canon's catalog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip V

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
506
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
Why would you need RF-s lenses ?
The point of an R7 is to use Big telephotos and have the amazing capabilities of the R6 and R5 :
Digic X processor
DPAF ii
Animal eye autofocus
An added bonus is you could use a speed booster ef-rf adapter to use EF lenses like FF
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
It's not so difficult to see that they aren't planning an RF-mount crop sensor camera and 0 crop sensor lenses and as I said, they can make cameras like Nikon's Z50, which isn't that big or heavy. They are slowly migrating their cinema line to RF-mount as well, because it is the logical thing to do.

No, they haven't done nearly as much as they could with the EF-M. They just don't want to, as the return on development investment is too little and smartphones are slowly eating up this segment.
As I said, there is plenty of life left in the EF-M they will continue to sell the cheap stuff and new cameras will be coming. Just not in the long-run as cameras are getting newer technology, but also become more and more expensive and one mount is enough to deal with.

EOS M is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth. What planet are you living on where there's no return on investment for Canon with the EOS M system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip V

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
506
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
Smartphones are the replacement for the Rebel line sadly
 
  • Like
Reactions: fingerstein

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,258
916
EOS M is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on Earth. What planet are you living on where there's no return on investment for Canon with the EOS M system?
I was referring to future development and cameras getting more and more expensive. It makes sense to keep it cheap and old, and provide a higher-end EOS M model for those who demand it, but it's getting more and more isolated as other new products come out that are outside the system.
If most things would remain the same expect the EF-M mount being RF-mount, it would still be popular and it would provide the easier upgrade opportunity just like moving to EF from EF-S. The new lenses will also be compatible with the newer cinema cameras, and a handful of them will stick to APS-C.
Again, I was talking long term, e.g. 3-4 years.
And as I wrote before, it's really not a huge volume of products to discontinue, so by that time they can probably make other (better, but probably more expensive) products to act as substitutes.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
506
Orewa , New Zealand
I’m hoping the R7 will be basically an R6 with an aps-c sensor and I’d be ok with a similar price to the R6 but a little bit cheaper would be welcome
I shoot Birds in Flight mostly especially small fast birds and use a 7D2 plus EF400 f/5.6 and EF300 f/2.8 and I’d love to buy an R5 which is the best camera in the world for Birds in Flight but the price is a bit too high for my hobby but I could stretch to the price of an R6 and an aps-c R7 would be perfect for my needs
 

fingerstein

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 25, 2016
63
24
5d mark iii had 25/30 fps în FHD, 7D mark II had 50/60 in 1080p and DPAF. Maybe a R7 would have better video options than R5... and will be less crippled... In my dreams.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,445
2,310
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?

It was to this rebel owner, but this rebel owner was willing to use an adapter and put some huge (by M standards, not by R standards) lenses on his M50.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,445
2,310
Why would you need RF-s lenses ?
The point of an R7 is to use Big telephotos and have the amazing capabilities of the R6 and R5 :
Digic X processor
DPAF ii
Animal eye autofocus
An added bonus is you could use a speed booster ef-rf adapter to use EF lenses like FF

I don't know why you'd need RF-s lenses--unless they want less expensive lenses for APS-C users (which you can do if they don't have to project as big an image circle), but I decided to opine on how they should do it--if they decide to do so.

If it truly becomes a "beginners likely to stay that way are on EF-M, more advanced people are on RF" world, I doubt they'd want an APS-C lens for RF, so I guess we're in partial agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
No...I mean this camera would have an R mount *identical* to the R mount on the R, RP, R6, and R5. There's no need to create some sort of RF-S kludge mount, like some people seem to imagine would be happening. Even if they design an R lens with a crop-size image circle, so what? Why bodge it so it won't mount on a full frame camera? That was the point of creating EF-S. But you can ALREADY mount EF-S lenses on an R mount (with the adapter of course); the camera just crops it. So there's simply no need for a special mount to handle RF crop lenses kludged so they won't go onto an R mount.

(As a side note, non-Canon-brand EF-S lenses, at least some of them, don't put my R5 into crop mode automatically. It's kind of cool, actually, it's a "tunnel vision" effect. It's clipped top and bottom just a bit, but not much.)

My Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II does the same thing on my 5D bodies.
 

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
350
138
Austria
www.flickr.com
I prefer the idea of keeping the R-line FF and the M-line APSC, to make full use of the smaller sensor size to build smaller lenses with a smaller bayonet to accompany it.

I also don't like the idea of APSC sensors in the R line, because it would quite likely lead to Canon developing RF-S lenses for APSC-R cameras, and this would keep RF-S lens owners in the APSC-ecosystem like it was a system of its own. (like it was hard to upgrade form the APSC EF-S system to the full-frame EF system). Then you can as well keep the EOS-M system.

That having said, as long as Canon doesn't spend effort on developing RF-S lenses, different sensor sizes like APS-C, APS-H, sqare sensors... for the R system won't hurt.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,445
2,310
My Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II does the same thing on my 5D bodies.

Yes, it's Tamron lenses that "don't work" on the R bodies for me too. Of course you can go in and set the crop mode yourself. I actually hope this never gets fixed; I think I might have use for the tunnel vision effect. (And it can be used to explain the concept of image circles and even the limits of IBIS.)
 

Pierre Lagarde

Canon, Nikon and So on ...
Aug 4, 2020
56
78
France
www.deviantart.com
I doubt video will be the main thing with the R7 , stills is probably what most people including me would be buying it for
Agreed. At that point, whatever websites relay, the decisions are in the hand of Canon anyway.
To my sense, there are only two major targets left for APS-C in the nowadays market :
  • tough conditions photographers (i.e. nature, wildlife, sports and events) that also want more reach
  • casual photographers (including travelling light) and beginners (with some focused at home video) that want better than a smartphone's shooting results in a small pack
On one hand, a RF replacement for 7D line could have sense, on the other hand, keep on producing small cameras like EOS Mx kits and small cool lenses can be enough.

Nowadays, for tough purposes, I think only R5 can be seen as a mirrorless replacement for 7Ds, and it's not ideal for everybody (considering both price and specs). Though, Canon is probably listening to the market to see if R5 is enough or if there is still demand for a dedicated "tough" mirrorless APS-C camera to consider.

BTW, I may be missing something but, is there any APS-C tough mirrorless camera in any brand ?...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Certainly the RF camera referenced here seems akin to a 7D successor and targeting users who will pay a premium for an APS-C camera, but I struggle to imagine Canon building this camera and then leaving things there. I think if they make one APS-C RF body, there is a good chance that other APS-C RF cameras come along to hit other price points. Canon has pumped R&D into RF, but the price for entry is still on the high side for first-time camera buyers. I could certainly see a lower cost body coming to RF to entice first time buyers to get into the Canon RF ecosystem, much the same way EF-S bodies were an easy transition to EF bodies.

I'm not sure I agree that Canon wouldn't re-launch lenses in APS-C RF mount - it really depends on their long-term plan, and they certainly re-launched several EF lenses in RF mount. 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). If Canon can fill out the lower cost/lower size range of RF lenses and shows willingness to create an APS-C RF line at all, then I could see a lot of temptation to move away from EF-S and EF-M entirely. Doing so could potentially fill (to some extent) the "small and light" niche held by EOS-M, and the "entry to mid-level" niche held by EF-S, while creating a more direct transition for those buying entry level bodies to purchase higher-end full frame bodies. It would also reduce the number of mounts they need to manage, and ensure that new entry level cameras are developed on the same platform they've openly admitted to focusing on. The more I think about it, the more I struggle to see Canon continuing to release bodies with mounts where no new glass is coming any time soon.

You seem to be under the impression that a good percentage of folks who buy an APS-C Rebel/xxxD/xxxxD or EOS M camera will want to constantly "upgrade" and "move up" because most of the folks here do. They do not. And there are a lot more of them than there are of us. A LOT more. That's what drives Canon's decisions regarding the EF/EF-S system, the EOS M system, and the EOS R system.

The EOS M system is aimed at a totally different market than where the EOS R system is aimed. Just because a few EOS M cameras wind up in the hands of those who are also interested in multiple bodies and a closet full of lenses doesn't mean that the EOS M system is not primarily aimed at the single camera owner who buys a camera, a kit lens and maybe a telephoto or a fast prime... and that's it for a few years.

That perfectly explains why the EOS M system seems so "limited" to camera gearheads. It's never been intended for gearheads.

The EOS M system is exactly what the vast majority of ILC buyers in the 21st Century want: a compact, lightweight, and affordable camera that is easy to take along to family get togethers, parties, and trips that has capabilities well beyond what their smartphone cameras can do.

They're not obsessed with what is coming out in six months. They wouldn't take a 1D X Mark III and an EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II if you gave it to them on permanent loan with the caveat that they couldn't sell it for cash. Most wouldn't even be interested in an R5 size body with a lens the size and weight of a mayonnaise jar. And they certainly don't want to spend anything else on another camera for several years.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
FYI.

I bought 7D cameras because I wanted the high end features at a price I could afford, and it let me buy lenses that could fit any Canon camera, while retaining their value.

If photography ever becomes my living, I just need to change the body. No M camera would can do any of this.

Can't wait for my APS-C RF mount camera, with EF adapter ;o)

If photography isn't already your living, it probably never will be. Full-time photographers in 2020 compared to 2000 are like harness makers were in 1920 compared to 1900.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

Doesn't some of that better manufacturing technique get tempered when you insist on making circuitry smaller and smaller on the surface of that wafer, though? It's one thing to say a 20MP FF sensor is cheaper to make today than it was in, say, 2005. But it's quite another thing to say an 80MP FF sensor is almost as cheap to make in 2020 as a 32MP APS-C sensor is. As the size goes down, the reject rate always goes up, and you're right back to the comparative costs of a 20MP FF sensor vs. an 8 MP APS-C sensor back in 2005. In your analogy, you're flicking the same amount of dye at it, but it's dispersing in greater numbers of smaller droplets spread more evenly.