There are two more APS-C RF mount cameras coming [CR2]

[Czardoom]

Yo!

And you - on purpose - misread my posts. Please read again - carefully.

Otherwise I see your comments as trolling.

Thanks in advance for your excuse.

Here's what you wrote in your first post:

A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
How else should Canon gain new customers?
(except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)

If I have misunderstood or misread the sentence in bold, please forgive me. It seems to say that you believe that the entry-level, Rebel level camera market segment is "absolutely dead". And that Canon should have researched this. So, no, I did not - on purpose - misread your post. I have read it carefully. If I misread your post it was unintentional.

 

[Czardoom]

Canon uses patents the same as most other large companies - ie to protect the IP which gives rise to their profits. Competitors can (and a number do) design lenses that attach to the RF mount - they just can't (from the little that has been made public) use Canon software to add extra functionality. So those lenses are largely 'manual'. But they can still be 'attached' to RF mount bodies.

To be clear, I wish Canon would come to some sort of licensing agreement with 3rd party producers - it would mean more lenses to choose from. But let's not completely mischaracterise the situation.

I would imagine - though obviously don't know - that Canon will at some point in the future, negotiate license agreements with at least Sigma and Tamron. I don't believe I have seen any comments or quotes from Canon that rules out this possibility. I know this is the internet where everyone has to have answers today, and needs to know today, and assumes that today's answer will be the answer for all time, but the 3rd party hysteria, like most internet topics, has been blown way out of proportion. Nikon just recently negotiated a license agreement with Tamron and are rumored to be in similar negotiations with Sigma (if those rumors are true), so it seems quite likely that at some point, Canon will do the same. Time will tell and I can wait.

 

[Maximilian]

Here's what you wrote in your first post:

A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
How else should Canon gain new customers?
(except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)

If I have misunderstood or misread the sentence in bold, please forgive me. It seems to say that you believe that the entry-level, Rebel level camera market segment is "absolutely dead". And that Canon should have researched this. So, no, I did not - on purpose - misread your post. I have read it carefully. If I misread your post it was unintentional.

Apology accepted. Let me try to put it right:

To me, my first post was clear:

A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
How else should Canon gain new customers?

This meant: "no-brainer" = absolutely clear to be needed, bring that camera on.

(except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)

This meant:
Except for the fact, that I have absolutely no idea any more, how much the photography market might have/has changed.
And somehow I have a little fear that it could have, but let's hope it didn't.
But Canon already should and does surely know much better than me (because I cannot do market researches as Canon can do), and they will bring such an entry market body, if there is a big enough market segment.

So if I understand you right, both of us think/feel/maybe know, that there is a need for an entry market body to get new/keep customers.
I just added some pessimistic thought that it could be worse than I/you think.

Did I come to the right conclusion?

 

[koenkooi]

[...]
Except for the fact, that I have absolutely no idea any more, how much the photography market might have/has changed.
And somehow I have a little fear that it could have, but let's hope it didn't.
But Canon already should and does surely know much better than me (because I cannot do market researches as Canon can do), and they will bring such an entry market body, if there is a big enough market segment.
[...]

I'm very curious about how the spectrum has changed over the years. When I bought my first camera, an IXUS 400, in 2003 there was generally speaking a progression:

1. No camera
2. Disposable cameras
3. Point & shoot
4. APS-C film cameras
5. 135 film cameras
6. The very first digital SLRs
7. Medium format cameras

A few years later, with, what in the US was called 'rebel', cameras being introduced:

1. No camera
2. point & shoot
3. 'rebel' camers
4. 135 film cameras
5. Digital SLRs
6. Medium format

Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight? The amount of kickbacks the salesperson gets? @neuroanatomist is fond of showing how strong SLR sales keep being, so there's something that keeps people buying them over things like the M series.

I know my father will buy the Olympus OM system body that's on sale or comes with free garbage he thinks he'll use. Arguments like "that's the exact same frame for both bodies, but this one has an accelerometer to automatically rotate your pictures, the other doesn't, for €30 more" fall on deaf ears. But lenses get researched very heavily The rest of the extended family is pretty much phone-only nowadays. Same for the neighbours, except for the vintage lens collector, but he has 2 kids under 5 now, so not much time for hobbies. The friends circle 'suffers' from the same small kids situation and use mostly their phones, but few of them bought a 'rebel' for their honeymoon and sporadically use it. My former coworkers in the concert industry like action cams, since you can strap them on and use them handsfree. Showing scale and rigging details is much easier on video.

Does anyone here have direct contact with people who are planning to buy their first ILC? What are their reasons for landing on an ILC instead of a bridge camera or phone. And what do they think the deciding factors will be for picking the brand/model/kit?

 

[Maximilian]

...
Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight?
...
Does anyone here have direct contact with people who are planning to buy their first ILC? What are their reasons for landing on an ILC instead of a bridge camera or phone. And what do they think the deciding factors will be for picking the brand/model/kit?

First of all, this might be an interesting topic for a dedicated thread.

I cannot tell much about today's general shopping behaviour, but my personal experience throughout the last decade with friends and relatives is that they first use they first try to get along with the cell, and if they are not satisfied they continue with an ILC system with double zoom kit, no matter what brand.
Even younger people that have not a classical (film days) background.
When I then got into contact with them, I heard that either the kit is too big or the performance is not good enough.
As soon as I showed them the advantages of a dedicated portrait lens with big aperture for low DOF they understood the reason for an ILC system.
Then they either bought such a prime (good if Canon, as the 50STM on APS-C is quite cheap) or they thought about a or super-zoom bridge p&s camera.

So my conclusion:
A lot of people buy ILC systems (double zoom kits), just because they think it is "the best you can get" or because they were "persuaded" by the salespeople.
Few have an understanding of photo technique and decide upon knowledge or good counselling. Those decide different then.
As soon as I get into the decision process before buying, I try to share my advice and lead them to the best direction for them (not necessarily Canon ).

 

[AntonR]

The entry segment isn't dead at all. Canon actually makes the most profit there. There's still lots of people who want to upgrade from phone quality and look for something in the sub $1000 range. If you watched any of Canon's video ads for R10 and R7 you'd have seen they're aiming for exactly that kind of customer (notice the age of people, general style and the music). They even did comparison pictures with phones.

As someone whose first DSLR camera was Canon 250D, and now using RP, this segment was definitely the way for me to enter the ecosystem.

 

[David - Sydney]

Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight? The amount of kickbacks the salesperson gets? neuroanatomist[ is fond of showing how strong SLR sales keep being, so there's something that keeps people buying them over things like the M series.

Rebel/Kiss/Dxxx/Dxxx are still cheaper and are more flexible in focal length than phone cameras. Mirrorless are currently more expensive than low end DLSRs which seems counterintuitive as there is no pentaprism/mirror assembly/phase detect sensor and are smaller.

Black Friday pricing may apply at the moment....
USD300 Rebel T100 + 18-55mm
USD430 Rebel T7 + 18-55mm
USD450 M100 + 15-45mm
USD550 T7 + 18-55mm + 75-300mm

USD450 Iphone SE/128gb or Pixel 6a or Galaxy A53. Can have multiple cameras but quality isn't great. A new iPhone 14 starts from USD800.

DLSRs are are more ergonomic and can trigger flashes. You may think why would lighting setups that cost as much as the camera (or more) be used.... well the staged wedding/portrait/cruise ship etc industry needs lights but don't need the fancy high ISO/resolution/eye-AF to make money and ultimately making money is the most important aspect of their business. The massive sales of ring lights during covid (11% CAGR 2016-2020 and 14% CAGR 2021-2031) and for insta/vlogging etc shows this trend.

Clearly phones are better in some ways: always on you, filters/LR/PS in-device, publishing and computational photography. Some people may not like the term "computational" but automatic HDR, low light, portrait, panorama stitching, etc is impressive.

There is definitely still a market for those who say "I want a better camera than my phone for a holiday", buy a low end ILC, find that the shots are not better than their phone and can't take selfies hence consigning the camera to a shelf gathering dust.

 

[victorshikhman]

Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...

I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.

I know this is not that camera. This camera is probably (maybe I'm wrong) designed to be a crippled, entry-level rebel that can hit the Costco or BestBuy price target, keep the M50 demographic, and move some kit lenses. That's fine.

Part of me thinks, if Canon thought there was a market for a camera like the one I want, they would update the G1Xiii, even though that's not exactly what I'm looking for (but it would probably work). And, they haven't, so... Even though Fuji can't seem to keep the X100V in stock, and used copies are going for more than retail. And Ricoh... seems overpriced and plasticky (but maybe if I used it I would love it). Oh, Canon, why can't you be all things to all people.

 

[shadow]

Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...

I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.

I know this is not that camera. This camera is probably (maybe I'm wrong) designed to be a crippled, entry-level rebel that can hit the Costco or BestBuy price target, keep the M50 demographic, and move some kit lenses. That's fine.

Part of me thinks, if Canon thought there was a market for a camera like the one I want, they would update the G1Xiii, even though that's not exactly what I'm looking for (but it would probably work). And, they haven't, so... Even though Fuji can't seem to keep the X100V in stock, and used copies are going for more than retail. And Ricoh... seems overpriced and plasticky (but maybe if I used it I would love it). Oh, Canon, why can't you be all things to all people.

Have you looked at the RX100?

https://www.sony.com/lr/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m7#product_details_default

 

[victorshikhman]

Have you looked at the RX100?

https://www.sony.com/lr/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m7#product_details_default

Ya know what... I haven't. And I should. I always kind of dismissed it as a really expensive choice, and the ergonomics seemed bare. But the VII is already 3 years old... maybe I can look for a used copy and play with it.

 

[melgross]

It might not make sense to you to use an APS-C but it does to enough others for Canon to judge it a worthwhile market. Also, you don't make special telephoto lenses of 400mm or greater for an APS-C because the lenses for FF and APS-C are basically the same for those lengths as it's the front optics that determine the focal length and aperture, and they have a natural image circle that is larger than for even FF.

As someone who has both a R5 and R7, I can tell you the £2000 combination of an R7 and RF 100-400mm weighing just over 1 kg has very close IQ and reach to a £7000 combo of an R5 and RF 100-500mm coming in at over 2 kg. And you certainly do get more reach using an APS-C with a pixel-dense sensor than cropping. Cropping doesn't increase reach, it just narrows the field of view. If I'm doing BIF, I grab my R5 and RF 100-500mm (or even my RF 100-400mm). If I want the most reach, I grab my R7 and the RF 800mm. I'm beginning to see the R7+RF 100-400mm on my birding trips, and I'll lay odds that it will become the standard gear for enthusiasts.

I never said that it doesn’t make sense to use them. I’m saying that the market has spoken. If there was a lot of demand for true pro APS-C bodies and lenses, manufacturers would supply that market. There isn’t, and so they don’t. That doesn’t mean that nobody would want it, just not enough in this massively shrunken market for them to want to spend the large sums for the R&D and production costs, along with service and parts.

if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.

and you’re talking about enthusiasts, I was talking about pros, as that was the question that we were discussing. Enthusiasts and prosumers, pretty much the same thing.

 

[melgross]

For me, a cheap FF body (RP replacement) would be ideal. I don't want an APS-C body as it would mean carrying additional wide angle lenses

"reach" is pixels-on-duck. Crop on R5 is ~17mp ie about the same as 7D vs 32mp with 90D/M6ii/R7.
Reach also means that telephoto lenses are cheaper... you can use a 70-200mm/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. RF100-400 instead of RF100-500 or the big whites.
No need for APS-C telephoto glass as EF/RF options are already there.
You do need wide angle APS-C lenses though ie down to 10mm (16mm ff equivalent). I doubt that anyone is using the EF11-24mm on a crop sensor


I am not sure if the market has said ff but it is a major differentiator vs phones for higher profit margins. Not sure it is a majority though given the volume/% of M series and rebel/kiss etc bodies that have been sold.

Again, we were talking about Pro bodies and lenses. As I mentioned, the M series has been very successful, despite being just the opposite, which shows that many (most?) people wanting APS-C want inexpensive, small and light bodies and lenses. They care less about something approaching FF. But, when I say this, some people here seem to think I’m saying that nobody wants more Pro level APS-C, and I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that not enough want that for companies to produce them.

 

[melgross]

Apology accepted. Let me try to put it right:

To me, my first post was clear:

This meant: "no-brainer" = absolutely clear to be needed, bring that camera on.

This meant:
Except for the fact, that I have absolutely no idea any more, how much the photography market might have/has changed.
And somehow I have a little fear that it could have, but let's hope it didn't.
But Canon already should and does surely know much better than me (because I cannot do market researches as Canon can do), and they will bring such an entry market body, if there is a big enough market segment.

So if I understand you right, both of us think/feel/maybe know, that there is a need for an entry market body to get new/keep customers.
I just added some pessimistic thought that it could be worse than I/you think.

Did I come to the right conclusion?

I don’t understand what you’ve been saying.

One; Canon MUST come out with the bodies you mentioned

Two; that market is dead.

So, which is it?

 

[Maximilian]

I don’t understand what you’ve been saying.

One; Canon MUST come out with the bodies you mentioned

Two; that market is dead.

So, which is it?

It seems that I think and argue too complicatedly.
Sorry, if so.

ONE: Canon for sure SHOULD come out with an entry level R body
TWO: Except in the case that there is no longer any entry market (which I do not know).
THREE: Canon surely knows better than me and will decide, if ONE or TWO is right

Have I made myself clear now?

 

[AlanF]

I never said that it doesn’t make sense to use them.

This is what you wrote:

The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image.

Seems to me you said "sense".

if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.

If you crop a 45mm FF image to APS-C, you get 17.6 MPx, which is less than 32 Mpx of the APS-C. If you want the math behind it, the Nyquist equation gives a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.00439) lp/mm = 114 lp/mm for the 45 Mpx FF and a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.0032) lp/mm = 156 lp/mm, which is 37% more for the APS-C.

On the other hand, an 82 Mpx FF sensor has exactly the same reach as a 32 Mpx APS-C, both having 3.2µ pixels.

 

[neuroanatomist]

if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.

Reach in this context is really about 'pixels on duck'. The 32 MP APS-C camera will put more pixels on the duck than the 45 MP FF camera, using the same lens.

 

[AlanF]

Reach in this context is really about 'pixels on duck'. The 32 MP APS-C camera will put more pixels on the duck than the 45 MP FF camera, using the same lens.

Exactly - 88% more pixels.

 

[osakawayne]

Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...

I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.

I know this is not that camera. This camera is probably (maybe I'm wrong) designed to be a crippled, entry-level rebel that can hit the Costco or BestBuy price target, keep the M50 demographic, and move some kit lenses. That's fine.

Part of me thinks, if Canon thought there was a market for a camera like the one I want, they would update the G1Xiii, even though that's not exactly what I'm looking for (but it would probably work). And, they haven't, so... Even though Fuji can't seem to keep the X100V in stock, and used copies are going for more than retail. And Ricoh... seems overpriced and plasticky (but maybe if I used it I would love it). Oh, Canon, why can't you be all things to all people.

I own a GRIIIX, and let me just say, it's been a great camera. Magnesium alloy body, so not plasticky at all, extremely compact, able to switch to a sort of 'macro mode', and the 40mm equivalent is great for me, it has really been great to just always have it with me, and I've taken it on certain trips and outings where it would seem very silly to take my EOS R6.
Downsides would be that the sensor is a little older, so can get noisy at higher ISO, I am also spoiled by having an R6 to compare with. Color is not Canon color, and menus is tough to deal with after you've used Canon menus, which I'm very comfortable with.
If canon finally releases an M50 or M6mkII body for RF, I'm willing to sacrifice they extreme compactness of the Ricoh, for the ability to change lenses on occasion, and a little more bulk, but a newer sensor (hopefully) and the canon controls and menu familiarity.
But all that being said, the GRIIIX is not a bad camera in the slightest, best non-Canon camera I've owned.

 

[melgross]

It seems that I think and argue too complicatedly.
Sorry, if so.

ONE: Canon for sure SHOULD come out with an entry level R body
TWO: Except in the case that there is no longer any entry market (which I do not know).
THREE: Canon surely knows better than me and will decide, if ONE or TWO is right

Have I made myself clear now?

I think that if the market was there in sufficient numbers, they would be produced. Nothing to say about that, as that’s just the way it works.

 

[melgross]

This is what you wrote:


Seems to me you said "sense".


If you crop a 45mm FF image to APS-C, you get 17.6 MPx, which is less than 32 Mpx of the APS-C. If you want the math behind it, the Nyquist equation gives a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.00439) lp/mm = 114 lp/mm for the 45 Mpx FF and a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.0032) lp/mm = 156 lp/mm, which is 37% more for the APS-C.

On the other hand, an 82 Mpx FF sensor has exactly the same reach as a 32 Mpx APS-C, both having 3.2µ pixels.

Ok, I was t clear there. What I meant was cropping to the same resolution, not the same sensor size. So crop 45 to 32. As I said, similar, it not the same.