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

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,708
2,696
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:

5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987.
Just think on a computer there were serial ports in the 80s, now there is USB-C. Canon can do much more with the RF protocol in the future, also for cheap consumer lenses, than what is possible with EF. And the consumers are the ones that buy the latest automatic gadgets more than the pros. Just think of an automatic zoom lens with face detection & AF. It doesn't need to be an expensive parafocal lens if focus is adjusted as it zooms. E.G. Mom films a panorama and then zooms in on the kid's face with the press of a button, no more manual zoom.
Canon said they could do more with RF when they introduced it, but as a practical matter, we haven't seem much evidence of that yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jvillain

EOS 90D
Sep 29, 2018
186
125
Looks like Canon will build an R7 after all which will please many loyal Canon users :)
The longer they wait the less pleased they will be as more and more will move on over time. Canon needs to come out with a road map becuas it looks like absolute chaos over there with no one at the wheel and I can't pull the trigger on any thing because I have no idea if Canon will abandon it tomorrow. I have been burned by Canon a few times over the last couple of years and it is losing it's appeal really fast.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,622
1,479
A wishful thinking at its best ....
Well, I suppose it could be true in some markets. I have no idea how much/little truth there is to that statement in the United States. (But then, in my corner of the world, Nikons far outstrip Canons when I see ILCs, so I can't consider it at all typical.)
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
428
185
Doubt this will kill EOS-M, unless Canon plan on relaunching all the current EF-M lenses in RP-S mount which is unlikely.
I think it wouldn't be much of a chore to do so. Several of the early EF lenses were just re-barrelled FD lenses I believe.

OTOH the same argument means that going forward they can engineer and produce one set of optics, and sell it in two housings, for twice the apparent number of products, and therefore not much downside in keeping M and RF mounts side by side.

Granted the resulting melange of products would be a little daunting to understand, but if it results in half the camera systems in the market being Canon camera systems, that just takes up more mind-share of a potential buyer.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,351
705
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
To add further arguments why EF-M will disappear:

5. The RF communication protocol is much more powerful and modern. The EF-M is just the EF protocol, which dates from 1987.
It isn't. The EF-M runs at a higher clock rate and a lower voltage than EF (when using native EF-M lenses.)

EF protocols - 1986
EF-M protocols - 2012
RF protocols - 2018

Yes, RF is more advanced. But I doubt that there's any reason to withdraw EF-M right now. After all, if you want a compact camera and compact lenses, EF-M is better than RF.
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
956
56
Speaking of size, RP is only 0.6 in wider than the M50, But is is also 0.3 in shorter than the M50. The RP is thicker than the M50 due to bigger grip. But with the lens being mounted on, the difference of thickness becomes meanlingless. In order for the APSC-R to be sucess, Canon has to come up with body and lenses that is comparable in size and price close to the M sytem. RP is already at $1000. The migration path is not as rosy as most of people think. if someone buys a APSC-R body and get the RF lenses, he will end up spending big bug and end up with big size( that he can migrate into the R later). The downward migration is easier. just put the big and expensive R lens on the APSC-R body. But that defeats the goal of having a smaller system. So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jolyonralph

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,622
1,479
Speaking of size, RP is only 0.6 in wider than the M50, But is is also 0.3 in shorter than the M50. The RP is thicker than the M50 due to bigger grip. But with the lens being mounted on, the difference of thickness becomes meanlingless. In order for the APSC-R to be sucess, Canon has to come up with body and lenses that is comparable in size and price close to the M sytem. RP is already at $1000. The migration path is not as rosy as most of people think. if someone buys a APSC-R body and get the RF lenses, he will end up spending big bug and end up with big size( that he can migrate into the R later). The downward migration is easier. just put the big and expensive R lens on the APSC-R body. But that defeats the goal of having a smaller system. So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.
Not all R lenses are humongous, even today. Who knows there may even be a full frame pancake someday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,351
705
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
So it seems to me, APSC-R and R will almost becomes two sperate system with the common mount.
Which makes you wonder why Canon would bother? To suddenly cut off all the existing EF-M users from upgrades and new lenses forcing them to buy an entirely new system just to standardize on an RF mount JUST in case someone in the future buys an RF lens for their APS-C camera and wants to upgrade to full frame? It doesn't work that way.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,622
1,479
Can you name one existing RF Lens that is small?
Not humongous is not the same thing as "small", certainly nothing is the size of the EF-M 22. But not all RF lenses are pickle jars either. The 35 mm is fairly compact for a full frame lens: 74.4 mm maximum diameter × 62.8mm extension from flange. Less than 3" wide and much more importantly less than 2 1/2 inches long. Taking 52mm filters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
956
56
Not humongous is not the same thing as "small", certainly nothing is the size of the EF-M 22. But not all RF lenses are pickle jars either. The 35 mm is fairly compact for a full frame lens: 74.4 mm maximum diameter × 62.8mm extension from flange. Less than 3" wide and much more importantly less than 2 1/2 inches long. Taking 52mm filters.
That is huge by M standard. Also that will be the field of view of 56 mm focal length on APS-C body. Pretty useless focal length.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Stig Nygaard

7DII & G5XII
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
66
97
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
For that they'd have to either upsample, or come up with a 45MP APS-C sensor. The 32 MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6-II is already a marvel.
I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,046
1,183
Hamburg, Germany
I've tried 90D and the 32mp sensor, and I didn't like the high iso performance of it. I hope the "built around speed" saying in the RF rumor could mean something like a 24-25mp sensor, based on new technology like the R5's 45mp sensor which apparently have very fast readout (and image quality) despite the high megapixel count.
Well, build around speed sounds like something aimed at the 7D series segment and therefore, a high resolution would be advantageous for use with the large telephoto lenses. Keep in mind the R5 does 20 FPS electronic at 45 MP. You no longer have to chose between high res and high speed with Canon. I think one of the biggest arguments for a 7-series RF APS-C camera would be the shutter. Canon can offer a 12 FPS mechanical FF shutter at the R6 price point. With the lesser weight and travel length of an APS-C shutter, that may well match or exceed the 16 FPS shutter in the 1DX III at far lower cost.

If your comment suggests that you want a lower resolution to get better high ISO performance, you will be disappointed to learn that a higher resolution doesn't negatively impact low light performance in a noteworthy way:

 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,102
1,820
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.
It's just the best selling ILC system in the world, that's all.

At least 95% of EOS M buyers DO NOT CARE about any upgrade opportunity to anything in the EOS R system.
Probably 99.9% of EOS M buyers DO NOT CARE about compatibility with Cine lenses.

95% of potential EOS M buyers DO CARE about price.

You're suggesting Canon abandon their current cash cow in order to give less than 5% of the current pool of EOS M buyers an upgrade opportunity and compatibility with Cine lenses in exchange for forcing higher prices on the other 95%? Is that about right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,102
1,820
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.
Who buys a 7D to shoot video? Who would consider an R7 or R90 to shoot video? There are other much better options already available.

The R7/R90 would be a niche product, just like the 7D Mark II is. How many of the YouTube video reviewers even mention the 7D Mark II when comparing any new hybrid camera to existing products?
 

Stig Nygaard

7DII & G5XII
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
66
97
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
You no longer have to chose between high res and high speed with Canon.
Even at 12fps mechanical on R5, it costs you some bit depth. 6 fps is the highest mechanical speed for 14 bit RAW shooting on the R5.

If your comment suggests that you want a lower resolution to get better high ISO performance, you will be disappointed to learn that a higher resolution doesn't negatively impact low light performance in a noteworthy way:
I've seen this theoretical argument many times, but I just have to say my personal experiences doesn't agree. I like the the 6400ISO photos with my 6 years old 7DII 20mp sensor much more than similar shots with the 90D's 32mp sensor (I tried it for a period). Also with the 90D's images downscaled to 20mp. I just couldn't get rid of white pixels in the deep shadows of the 90D images without turning noise reduction much higher up than I like to do. This is for RAW images processed in Adobe Camera Raw.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,102
1,820
This is great news for lot of people.....but how about getting some R5's in stock for now before they start announcing more stuff they can't actually deliver please.
Have you tried ordering an R5 from anyone besides B&H? R5 bodies can be found if one spends enough effort looking for one. It appears B&H took far more pre-orders than they had any hope of actually delivering any time soon. Canon USA does not seem concerned to divert more R5 bodies to B&H at the expense of their direct sales channel and other dealers who Canon likely perceives as following their pricing and marketing guidelines more closely. It's a fairly well known "secret" that B&H will move below Canon's minimum allowable advertised price if you call them and ask for it, either in the form of a lower cash price or in the form of more "freebies" than what they advertise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,102
1,820
Actually, I think you might be correct. Just speaking for myself, I would probably have bought a 7DIII if they made it. Would have actually bought two, one for me and one for my wife.

But, even with the 5D IV I found that the resolution was sufficient for most of my bird photography and the 7DII was getting less and less use. I'm thinking that with the R5, once the price drops, I can replace both the 5DIV and 7DII and not give up much, plus, with the R, I would have a second body with truly silent shutter when I need that for events.

I'm not sure if I have sufficient GAS in the tank to buy both an R5 and an R7, especially since I am fast approaching the point where my paying photography work will end and only the hobby photography will remain. In this segment, a large part of the shrinking camera market is comprised of boomers who are aging out of the market. Canon can milk us for a few more years, but eventually, we will be too old and decrepit to carry around these cameras and the M series will become more attractive.
Yeah, if you already have an EOS R to use as a "wide" body in a two camera set-up, then if the price isn't prohibitive the EOS R5 can fairly well replace the 7D Mark II for most of what current users of the 7D Mark II do with it. It would still be nice to get pixel density closer to a 32/80MP (APS-C/FF) sensor, instead of 45/18MP, though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,102
1,820
The disconnect for me is why do such people (who I agree are in the majority) want an interchangeable lens system at all? They are well catered for by the various high end compacts and bridge cameras which do most things tolerably well and some things extremely well indeed. I wonder if the answer is that there's a bit of the gearhead in all of us...
Because the lower end M’s are cheaper than the G7 or the G5, atleast in my part of the world.
Not only price, but the EOS M series uses APS-C sensors while most high end compacts and bridge cameras use much smaller sensors. With the advances smartphones have made in low light shooting via computational photography, low light performance is more of a concern than it once was for the ultra-small, ultra-lightweight camera market sector.